American Healthcare continues to go backward

[Polds4OSU]

Here’s a top CDC official claiming that the U.S. losing its measles elimination status would be “the cost of doing business.”

Mike Nellis (@mike_nellis) on Threads

Here’s a top CDC official claiming that the U.S. losing its measles elimination status would be “the cost of doing business.” We are governed by the dumbest people.

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

BERNIE SANDERS: Do vaccines cause autism?

BHATTACHARYA: I do not believe that the measles vaccine causes autism

SANDERS: Nah. Uh uh. I didn't ask measles. Do vaccines cause autism?

BHATTACHARYA: I have not seen a study that suggests any single vaccine causes autism

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

BERNIE SANDERS: Do vaccines cause autism? BHATTACHARYA: I do not believe that the measles vaccine causes autism SANDERS: Nah. Uh uh. I didn't ask measles. Do vaccines cause autism? BHATTACHARYA: I have not seen a study that suggests any single vaccine causes autism

www.threads.com

 

[RxCowboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2017725346808770841

 

[RxCowboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2017988224493433037

 

[steross]

BERNIE SANDERS: Do vaccines cause autism?

BHATTACHARYA: I do not believe that the measles vaccine causes autism

SANDERS: Nah. Uh uh. I didn't ask measles. Do vaccines cause autism?

BHATTACHARYA: I have not seen a study that suggests any single vaccine causes autism

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

BERNIE SANDERS: Do vaccines cause autism? BHATTACHARYA: I do not believe that the measles vaccine causes autism SANDERS: Nah. Uh uh. I didn't ask measles. Do vaccines cause autism? BHATTACHARYA: I have not seen a study that suggests any single vaccine causes autism

www.threads.com

Are you just posting this for info?

I can't see a single thing wrong with what he said?

 

[RxCowboy]

Are you just posting this for info?

I can't see a single thing wrong with what he said?

He could have said it the other way, studies have ruled out the possibility that vaccines cause autism. They way he said it the first time, “measles” left open the possibility that other vaccines cause autism, and the second time that there still could be evidence that they do. Those are weasel answers.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

He could have said it the other way, studies have ruled out the possibility that vaccines cause autism. They way he said it the first time, “measles” left open the possibility that other vaccines cause autism, and the second time that there still could be evidence that they do. Those are weasel answers.

What I took from his last answer and I wish Bernie would have followed up is that the Dr said (paraphrasing in quotes) “He has not seen a study where a SINGLE vaccine causes autism.” I took this as homage to the current practice of HHS dancing around the vaccine causation debate and their flirtation w autism rates possibly being linked to multiple bring administered at one time.

Maybe it’s just my distrust of current HHS and White House.

 

[RxCowboy]

What I took from his last answer and I wish Bernie would have followed up is that the Dr said (paraphrasing in quotes) “He has not seen a study where a SINGLE vaccine causes autism.” I took this as homage to the current practice of HHS dancing around the vaccine causation debate and their flirtation w autism rates possibly being linked to multiple bring administered at one time.

Maybe it’s just my distrust of current HHS and White House.

Good catch. Yes, it was a weasely answer.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Good catch. Yes, it was a weasely answer.

It’s just all so stupid. I don’t agree w the “Whole Foods Moms” position on vaccines but it for the most part seems to align w how they treat all aspects of their life ranging from vaccines to micro plastics to processed foods and so on.

The recent Magastani position on vaccines is being led by grifters and influencers who get paid to post.

Had dinner w a friend who is Magastani adjacent and bc of pandemic refuses to now get vaccinated. He’s had the flu now 3 straight winters.

Kicker is he just lost 30 pounds on a non FDA approved Chinese GLP1 type black market medicine and tried to get me to take it. I asked him “Are you nuckin futs? You won’t take a flu shot but you’ll take a chemical from China that comes in a package you can’t even read that was sold to you by a pastor from your church”.

True story. Won’t take vaccines but will take this stuff bc a pastor recommended it.

 

[steross]

He could have said it the other way, studies have ruled out the possibility that vaccines cause autism. They way he said it the first time, “measles” left open the possibility that other vaccines cause autism, and the second time that there still could be evidence that they do. Those are weasel answers.

Studies have not ruled out the possibility that vaccines cause autism. Absolutes just are not generally science. Science speaks in probabilities, not absolutes almost always.

And the sentence before the one quoted was Sanders saying "I appreciate your thoughts on measles" so a response to the measles vaccine is not inappropriate like the way Bondi and Hegseth just answer with random nonsense.

I think "you are with us or against us" talk is dangerous. I don't agree with everything Bhattacharya says but he is not an antiscience loon. He does speak about getting back the public trust on things like vaccines. He is as anti-RFK as that position is going to get right now. If he goes away, it would be worse. If he spoke anywhere like you did, he would be fired.

 

[RxCowboy]

Studies have not ruled out the possibility that vaccines cause autism. Absolutes just are not generally science. Science speaks in probabilities, not absolutes almost always.

Oh, steross, in order for it to be "science" it has to be "science" from the outset, and vaccines and autism was never science. The whole premise put forth by Andrew Wakefield originally linking vaccines to autism was fraudulent. Wakefield was disgraced, the paper was retracted. Yet the fraud has persisted and the goalposts keep shifting. It's now multiple vaccines given at once, or the sequence of vaccines, or vaccines given too close together and thus the weasel answers from Bhattacharya. Yet clinical trial after clinical trial after clinical trial has failed to find any evidence of a causal link. It. has. been. disproven. Because there was never any credible theory or hypothesis to begin with. It was a fraud. People were duped. People cling to the dupe because they are desperate for hope that there will be a bad guy, or that a cure will be found.

 

[steross]

Oh, steross, in order for it to be "science" it has to be "science" from the outset, and vaccines and autism was never science. The whole premise put forth by Andrew Wakefield originally linking vaccines to autism was fraudulent. Wakefield was disgraced, the paper was retracted. Yet the fraud has persisted and the goalposts keep shifting. It's now multiple vaccines given at once, or the sequence of vaccines, or vaccines given too close together and thus the weasel answers from Bhattacharya. Yet clinical trial after clinical trial after clinical trial has failed to find any evidence of a causal link. It. has. been. disproven. Because there was never any credible theory or hypothesis to begin with. It was a fraud. People were duped. People cling to the dupe because they are desperate for hope that there will be a bad guy, or that a cure will be found.

You know that is not how it works.

If there was never a credible theory, then there never should have been a single study of it. We have never tested blue pajamas as the cause as that is not credible. Of course, vaccines were a credible hypothesis which is why it is often tested. It is extremely unlikely that there is any causation of autism from current vaccines. However, science can only give strength of probabilities. It cannot prove the negative and does not try. As AI gets better, they could find a tiny signal in vaccination of fair skinned kids only in the winter months that is too weak to pick up in the current studies and from a mechanism we do not yet understand. Don't give up on being scientific just to fight with people who are not scientific.

We both believe that autism isn't from vaccine and there is no flying spaghetti monster. The lack of a single sighting of a FSM makes it scientifically improbable, but not disproven as a possibility. One can show up tomorrow and the science changes.

Don't try to take that fundamental brilliance of science away just to try to win a pissing contest with anti-vax ignorance.

 

[Polds4OSU]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[RxCowboy]

You know that is not how it works.

If there was never a credible theory, then there never should have been a single study of it. We have never tested blue pajamas as the cause as that is not credible. Of course, vaccines were a credible hypothesis which is why it is often tested. It is extremely unlikely that there is any causation of autism from current vaccines. However, science can only give strength of probabilities. It cannot prove the negative and does not try. As AI gets better, they could find a tiny signal in vaccination of fair skinned kids only in the winter months that is too weak to pick up in the current studies and from a mechanism we do not yet understand. Don't give up on being scientific just to fight with people who are not scientific.

We both believe that autism isn't from vaccine and there is no flying spaghetti monster. The lack of a single sighting of a FSM makes it scientifically improbable, but not disproven as a possibility. One can show up tomorrow and the science changes.

Don't try to take that fundamental brilliance of science away just to try to win a pissing contest with anti-vax ignorance.

Oh, but I do know that's how it works. I know that Wakefield's work wasn't proved to be a fraud and he wasn't disgraced overnight, so people took up the work of studying it. I also know that the fraud has persisted despite the fact that it was proven to be a fraud and so yet again in clinical trial after clinical trial data has been collected. It isn't a pissing match. Oh, and it's trial lawyers, too. They want the deep pockets to go after. It isn't just improbable, it's fraud. It was fraud from the outset. it was never science. And that doesn't take away at all from the brilliance of the tons of scientific data and decades of science disproving it.

 

[steross]

Oh, but I do know that's how it works. I know that Wakefield's work wasn't proved to be a fraud and he wasn't disgraced overnight, so people took up the work of studying it. I also know that the fraud has persisted despite the fact that it was proven to be a fraud and so yet again in clinical trial after clinical trial data has been collected. It isn't a pissing match. Oh, and it's trial lawyers, too. They want the deep pockets to go after. It isn't just improbable, it's fraud. It was fraud from the outset. it was never science. And that doesn't take away at all from the brilliance of the tons of scientific data and decades of science disproving it.

Wakefield's work ended up being fraud. BUT, the only reason it was accepted in the first place before it was found to be fraudulent is because the hypothesis was credible. If he had fraudulently created work that showed that autism is caused by magic spells from dust bunnies, it never would have been accepted in the first place.

You are taking a reasonable argument and letting your anger make you take it too far. You sound JUST LIKE THEM. Again, science cannot and does not try to complete disprove things. Science can effectively disprove something if strong studies (or tests) do not show the outcome, combined with independent methods finding the same result, and finally, alternative explanations explain the data better.

I personally feel this has been effectively disproven, but that third criteria would be debated. Saying "disproven" will not make them go "Oh, ok, I was wrong, thanks." It will strengthen their resolve because you sound argumentative and dismissive, exactly what they say medical people are. I see all over that we are working on "faith" in vaccines and all that nonsense. Absolutes sound faith based.

And, BTW, this is what has been happening since COVID and, guess what, THEY ARE WINNING. Maybe putting away the high horse and letting someone they trust, like Bhattacharya, walk them back through it maybe better than the pissing contest you are obviously in even if you claim otherwise. Or, you can stay on your high horse and be correct, but lose.

 

[RxCowboy]

Wakefield's work ended up being fraud. BUT, the only reason it was accepted in the first place before it was found to be fraudulent is because the hypothesis was credible. If he had fraudulently created work that showed that autism is caused by magic spells from dust bunnies, it never would have been accepted in the first place.

You are taking a reasonable argument and letting your anger make you take it too far. You sound JUST LIKE THEM. Again, science cannot and does not try to complete disprove things. Science can effectively disprove something if strong studies (or tests) do not show the outcome, combined with independent methods finding the same result, and finally, alternative explanations explain the data better.

I personally feel this has been effectively disproven, but that third criteria would be debated. Saying "disproven" will not make them go "Oh, ok, I was wrong, thanks." It will strengthen their resolve because you sound argumentative and dismissive, exactly what they say medical people are. I see all over that we are working on "faith" in vaccines and all that nonsense. Absolutes sound faith based.

And, BTW, this is what has been happening since COVID and, guess what, THEY ARE WINNING. Maybe putting away the high horse and letting someone they trust, like Bhattacharya, walk them back through it maybe better than the pissing contest you are obviously in even if you claim otherwise. Or, you can stay on your high horse and be correct, but lose.

How did Bernie Madoff defraud people of $65 billion? A plausible lie. But a plausible lie is still a lie. Fraud is still fraud regardless of how convincing it may have been in the beginning.

What a world we live in where we shy away from speaking the truth because some people might cover their ears and run away.

 

[steross]

How did Bernie Madoff defraud people of $65 billion? A plausible lie. But a plausible lie is still a lie. Fraud is still fraud regardless of how convincing it may have been in the beginning.

What a world we live in where we shy away from speaking the truth because some people might cover their ears and run away.

Thank you for changing your mind from the hyperbole that it was never a plausible hypothesis.

It isn't about saying "the truth." It is about presenting the truth.

If we didn't know each other and met, imagine you mentioned you are a Christian, and I said that I am not a believer but understand the desire for a higher power and we went on with the conversation. Now compare to if you said, "I'm a Christian and non-believers go to hell" and I responded "There is absolutely zero objective proof of the nonsense you are spouting you nut job."

Both possible conversations. Both "the truth" in each person's eye. But tell me this, which one is going to make you more likely to be swayed to my side or expect me to be swayed to yours? Again, is your goal to be alone and correct or is your goal to get people to the right thing.
Look back at your own statin posts.

I had a patient today who "I don't trust big pharma" but he smokes 2 packs per day and apparently is just fine trusting big tobacco. It's actually in his PCP's note that he "doesn't trust big pharma." I have a lot of patients like that, he's not the only one. But I've managed to get his A1c under 7. I may never convince him to quit smoking, but I'm not going to stop trying. I also may never convince him to take a statin, though with his age and diabetes he needs to be on a high intensity statin. But, again, I won't stop trying. If I condescended to him, even the slightest bit, I would be useless as a clinician and his A1c would still be 9+.

How do I not condescend to people like that? I realize that many if not most of the ivermectin/HCQ people are relatively intelligent people who have been deceived.

I know what I want from him, and that is to control his diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. and I stay focused on that. What do you want, to be away from stupid people or to win the next election? If it is the former, keep condescending. They'll stay away from you. If it is to win the next election, then you have to change your strategy and that means changing your tone.