• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do conservatives still want Chris Christie?

Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm glad it all worked out.

Just curious, what sort of poor results could you end up with?
Click to expand...

Of vaccines? There are plenty of negative side effects to vaccines. Again - I repeat that I followed my wives lead. From what I understand there are increased chances for the negative side effects due to a multiplicative effect of taking more that 1 at once. Similar to the idea that a person can defeat cancer and can defeat heart disease but their body has a difficult time attackng both at the same time. At least that is how she explained it to me. Our body still has to "defeat" the vaccine so to speak. So giving it one a time makes it less likely to receive a negative side effect.

That is how it was explained. She could be dead wrong. I don't know the research. But it makes sense.
 
Wrangor said:
I agree the science is good. I also think it is wise to have a society where the parents still have input in the decision. Science changes over time. In a system where this sort of action is government mandated you could end up with some pretty poor results.

Like I said. We are fully vaccinated and it isn't like we waited til the child was 10. We just delayed a few months here and there because that is what my wife felt was best. I think that is a good balance and I think that is what Christie was referring with when he was quoted.
Click to expand...

More like you hope that is what Christie was referring to when he was quoted.

Is there any reason to believe he was not being cravenly political?
 
Wrangor said:
Of vaccines? There are plenty of negative side effects to vaccines. Again - I repeat that I followed my wives lead. From what I understand there are increased chances for the negative side effects due to a multiplicative effect of taking more that 1 at once. Similar to the idea that a person can defeat cancer and can defeat heart disease but their body has a difficult time attackng both at the same time. At least that is how she explained it to me. Our body still has to "defeat" the vaccine so to speak. So giving it one a time makes it less likely to receive a negative side effect.

That is how it was explained. She could be dead wrong. I don't know the research. But it makes sense.
Click to expand...

:rulz: goddammit i fucking hate anti-science republicans
 
No offense to your wife or you but I'm certainly more inclined to believe the schedule put forth by doctors and scientists than a few months of research on my own. That's why we have doctors.
 
Wrangor said:
Of vaccines? There are plenty of negative side effects to vaccines. Again - I repeat that I followed my wives lead. From what I understand there are increased chances for the negative side effects due to a multiplicative effect of taking more that 1 at once. Similar to the idea that a person can defeat cancer and can defeat heart disease but their body has a difficult time attackng both at the same time. At least that is how she explained it to me. Our body still has to "defeat" the vaccine so to speak. So giving it one a time makes it less likely to receive a negative side effect.

That is how it was explained. She could be dead wrong. I don't know the research. But it makes sense.
Click to expand...

So the scientists and your pediatrician are trying to harm your kid by recommending multiple vaccines at a specific age?
 
This is what Wrangor is afraid of...

10968555_1534940036767966_3157455516042621334_n.jpg
 
So what the hell was Christie actually saying? From my reading of a few articles, he comes across as saying I vaccinate my kids and that should tell you enough about my feelings, kids should definitely be vaccinated for things like measles, but parents should also have choices. Choices in what??
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
No offense to your wife or you but I'm certainly more inclined to believe the schedule put forth by doctors and scientists than a few months of research on my own. That's why we have doctors.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. We shouldn't have the right to determine how we medicate our children because there are doctors out there? This is my whole point. Parents should have input. Medicine changes, doctors change opinions...look at what we were practicing as normal medicine 50 years ago...100 years ago. We are going to look back 50 years from now and say 'what were we doing?'. I personally don't want to live in a society where these choices are mandated by government. I am not saying the government can't set up guidelines, and I am not saying that the parent knows better than the guidelines, but the parent needs to have significant input, even if their input isn't what the majority of society would choose to do. You know the land of the free and all that jazz.

And yes PH - the doctors are trying to harm my kids. Good grief. Everything is reductionistic on this board. There is a LOT of grey area in medicine. A TON. Doctors disagree over treatment all the time. Patients disagree with their doctors assessment all the time. It doesn't mean the doctor is sinister. It doesn't mean the patient is right. This board is impossible to have a dialogue because everyone is trying to win an argument instead of discuss an issue. For the most part I appreciate numbers open questions (but even he can't help himself with that last jab at me because I have a different take on the issue).

Do you really want to live in a society where the government can mandate treatment for your children?

If the answer to that question is anything but YES, absolutely - then you agree that parents need to have input into the treatment of their children. That is what Christie said (if you actually just read his quote instead of inferring your own opinion into what he 'meant' to say) and that is what I am saying. Parents need input. No medical decision, even vaccinations should be determined solely by the government.
 
Last edited:
The Kenpom rating for defensive Wrangor would be off the charts.

Wrangor, what's the grey area with vaccine schedules? Why do you question the reasoning behind them?
 
Is there any legitimate science out there suggesting that the current vaccination schedule is not the optimal one? I have no idea to be honest.
 
Read. It helps PH. I already said my wife was the one passionate about the issue. I saw no harm for either our kids or society in pursuing a more cautious approach. Unlike you, I will not pretend to be an expert on something I am not. Good day buddy.
 
The only arguments I see for scientists advocating for flexible schedules on vaccines are scientists saying that any "recommended" course of action by the government in this era results in automatic distrust from some groups of people. By allowing for flexible scheduling the overall rate of vaccinations will increase which is a net positive.

That doesn't explain from an individual standpoint why a flexible schedule might be better though.
 
There are some things that the government has to mandate because the danger to others greatly outweighs the considerations of personal freedom. It is healthy to debate where those lines should be drawn. The massively overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that society's interest in mandatory, timely vaccination supporting herd immunity and protecting the immuno-compromised far, far outweighs the personal freedom interests of parents who read some stuff on the internet, get nervous, and make up their own vaccination schedule.

It's on the same level as society's interest in enforcing speed limits to protect pedestrians who don't deserve to get killed by someone exercising their personal freedom to go 85 in a school zone because that person has independently determined that such behavior is safe.

Sorry if that seems blunt or insensitive.
 
Wrangor said:
Read. It helps PH. I already said my wife was the one passionate about the issue. I saw no harm for either our kids or society in pursuing a more cautious approach. Unlike you, I will not pretend to be an expert on something I am not. Good day buddy.
Click to expand...

Read what? I'm not pretending to be an expert at all. I'm acknowledging that there are experts and I defer to them.

923, if Obama comes out in favor of school zone speed limits, I'm sure the nut jobs will be driving 85 there soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Well what happens if a parent says ok i need to get my kid vaccinated, but I would rather do it over a few days than all at once because I can't stand my child getting that many shots, a shot overload can't be ideal for my baby, and I'd just prefer to do it at my own pace? If the end result is the child getting vaccines, is that flexibility, based on emotion and personal preference (with a touch of irrational fear), ok?

As a Christie fan, this is the kind of thing I'm hoping Christie was saying, but I'm just going to imagine he doesn't want to piss off the portion of his base that will never allow the government to tell them what to do and he needs to appease them.
 
PhDeac said:
Read what? I'm not pretending to be an expert at all. I'm acknowledging that there are experts and I defer to them.

923, if Obama comes out in favor of school zone speed limits, I'm sure the nut jobs will be driving 85 there soon enough.
Click to expand...

The fact that I said 'Read' and you thought I was talking about you reading your own posts is hilarious to me.

You have to 'Read' my posts. You keep asking me for reasons behind my wife's decisions, and I have already laid them out and said very clearly that I don't claim to be an expert. You are still trying to argue our decision, when I didn't really make it.

lol.
 
the troubling part is that it's not doctors or scientists planting seeds of doubt about vaccines, it's politicians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top