Suggest a Topic
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
1st congressional district
2012 election
2012 session
agriculture
art
arts
author
beer
births
books
budget
business
central oregon
college
congress
crime
culture
death penalty
eastern oregon
economy
education
employment
energy
environment
eugene
fishing
food
gangs
gay rights
health
health care
high school
history
homeless
housing
jobs
law
legislature
literature
living
media
mental health
military
movies
music
native americans
obama
occupy portland
occupy wall street
onthejob
oregon
our town
outdoors
parenting
police
politics
portland
portland business journal
portland mayor
pregnancy
prison
public health
race
rebroadcast
recess
recession
religion
republicans
rural
schools
science
shooting
sports
supreme court
talking business
technology
teen
theater
unemployment
union
university of oregon
washington
water
weekend
women
youth
see all tags >>
EBinoregon's comments:
on Taking Shots
I appreciate what you are saying and as a fellow mathematician I also agree with the epidemiologists. And I also love statistics (crazy, I know). But the issue that i'm getting at I actually posted earlier. That is that I don?t think this is a black and white issue.
Many people seem to think that it HAS to be one way entirely, or the other entirely. In my opinoin it?s not whether to immunize or not. It?s more of a ?which ones? ?when? and ?where? type of issue. And my point as an economist is that getting good answers is tough when the people we are asking to provide them are trying to balance (again not black and white) profit for shareholders and caring for people. I know many, many good heath care professionals (again, it?s not black and white) and probably many truly are trying to do what they believe is best. The problem is that is the information they use to make their decisions is sometimes true, and sometimes not always true (again, not black and white) but they treat it all as if it is totally 100% infallible. And therein lies the problem. On top of that many (again, not all) of the companies they work for are also in that $$ balancing act. However well intended. That is simply a fact of how our economy, and in this case the health care component of our economy, works. The same sadly holds true all across the many different parts of a free market, capitalism based economy (and again, there are many exceptions). Anyway, this isn?t the place to open this can of worms. There is far too much that would need to be discussed on the subject that this chat room is not a place for. So in a sense I?m sorry for even bringing it up since it cannot be fully and properly discussed.
Many people seem to think that it HAS to be one way entirely, or the other entirely. In my opinoin it?s not whether to immunize or not. It?s more of a ?which ones? ?when? and ?where? type of issue. And my point as an economist is that getting good answers is tough when the people we are asking to provide them are trying to balance (again not black and white) profit for shareholders and caring for people. I know many, many good heath care professionals (again, it?s not black and white) and probably many truly are trying to do what they believe is best. The problem is that is the information they use to make their decisions is sometimes true, and sometimes not always true (again, not black and white) but they treat it all as if it is totally 100% infallible. And therein lies the problem. On top of that many (again, not all) of the companies they work for are also in that $$ balancing act. However well intended. That is simply a fact of how our economy, and in this case the health care component of our economy, works. The same sadly holds true all across the many different parts of a free market, capitalism based economy (and again, there are many exceptions). Anyway, this isn?t the place to open this can of worms. There is far too much that would need to be discussed on the subject that this chat room is not a place for. So in a sense I?m sorry for even bringing it up since it cannot be fully and properly discussed.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
You are thinking in a box Marvin. I will simplify for sake of time...
First, they get to charge for the vaccines (many of which are no longer necessary).
Second the number of vaccines has tripled in the last few years.
Third, the number of vaccines given and the $ made from them, far outweighs the few people who come down with these diseases and are treated.
Forth, the lawsuits. Condider the Billions of $$ drug companies would be sued for if they had to admit that there were dangers that should have been known. Not that i'm saying there are or are not, but just think about it, this has happened with other drugs and it has cost them many millions.
And I could go on and on.
But the bottom line is I am not the source of this information. And I actually support much of the western medicine. But I?ve travelled and lived in 35+ countries and I can tell you, other developed countries have been studying how we do things here and I have read many times specifically how health care decisions are made out of $$ reasoning.
I don?t have the time or space necessary to write the bullet proof dissertation that would prove this point to you and everyone else. Nor do I think I need to. Nor do I consider myself the expert on the subject. The information backing this subject is considerable. And it should be noted that it is simply a part of how our economy works in this country, for better or worse. And it is a part of many other components of our economy. I challenge you to study the subject, and then make your comments.
All that said, I am no conspiracy theorist person, I am simply pragmatic about the environment of the world we live in.
First, they get to charge for the vaccines (many of which are no longer necessary).
Second the number of vaccines has tripled in the last few years.
Third, the number of vaccines given and the $ made from them, far outweighs the few people who come down with these diseases and are treated.
Forth, the lawsuits. Condider the Billions of $$ drug companies would be sued for if they had to admit that there were dangers that should have been known. Not that i'm saying there are or are not, but just think about it, this has happened with other drugs and it has cost them many millions.
And I could go on and on.
But the bottom line is I am not the source of this information. And I actually support much of the western medicine. But I?ve travelled and lived in 35+ countries and I can tell you, other developed countries have been studying how we do things here and I have read many times specifically how health care decisions are made out of $$ reasoning.
I don?t have the time or space necessary to write the bullet proof dissertation that would prove this point to you and everyone else. Nor do I think I need to. Nor do I consider myself the expert on the subject. The information backing this subject is considerable. And it should be noted that it is simply a part of how our economy works in this country, for better or worse. And it is a part of many other components of our economy. I challenge you to study the subject, and then make your comments.
All that said, I am no conspiracy theorist person, I am simply pragmatic about the environment of the world we live in.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
The challenge here is understanding that vaccines have, in fact, had a positive general outcome. BUT it was not without ?side effects? (as it is referred to in the medical community). The REAL QUESTION for all of us is whether these side effects are STILL worth it. For some things the answer may be a fairly overwhelming yes, but for others it may be deemed to be NO LONGER worth it, even if it WAS worth it just a few decades ago. I don?t believe, nor do many on the side of ?think first before just doing what everyone else does? think that there should be ZERO VACCINATIONS. It?s more a matter of which ones do we, as a society, still need, and which ones would be better suited for those who are living in or travel in high risk areas.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
The challenge here is understanding that vaccines have, in fact, had a positive general outcome. BUT it was not without ?side effects? (as it is referred to in the medical community). The REAL QUESTION for all of us is whether these side effects are STILL worth it. For some things the answer may be a fairly overwhelming yes, but for others it may be deemed to be NO LONGER worth it, even if it WAS worth it just a few decades ago. I don?t believe, nor do many on the side of ?think first before just doing what everyone else does? think that there should be ZERO VACCINATIONS. It?s more a matter of which ones do we, as a society, still need, and which ones would be better suited for those who are living in or travel in high risk areas.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
Information is available these days. There is no secret place that doctors get there information that we don?t have access to. Health care professionals study much of the same information that we do. The difference is that YOU have time to do the research. They DONT.
Some of the guests, callers have taken far more time than ANY pediatrician could ever afford to take (and still be in business) to study this subject.
Are they right? Good question. But we should understand that these are people who are consuming vast amounts of information in a quest to understand something. Our doctors, as well intended as they are, don?t have that sort of time. I know a number of doctors in different fields. They don?t have time to see their own kids, let alone research mountains of information that is coming out every day.
SO... work WITH your health care provider to learn about issues affecting your children. Don?t just "take their word for it". Challenge them to provide current research that supports their position if it is in opposition to yours.
I personally don?t like the fact that my pediatrician, as highly recommended and expensive as he is, basically just defaults to the position of, "well, whatever you feel is the right way to do it is ok for you" whenever I present a different point of view than his.
Some of the guests, callers have taken far more time than ANY pediatrician could ever afford to take (and still be in business) to study this subject.
Are they right? Good question. But we should understand that these are people who are consuming vast amounts of information in a quest to understand something. Our doctors, as well intended as they are, don?t have that sort of time. I know a number of doctors in different fields. They don?t have time to see their own kids, let alone research mountains of information that is coming out every day.
SO... work WITH your health care provider to learn about issues affecting your children. Don?t just "take their word for it". Challenge them to provide current research that supports their position if it is in opposition to yours.
I personally don?t like the fact that my pediatrician, as highly recommended and expensive as he is, basically just defaults to the position of, "well, whatever you feel is the right way to do it is ok for you" whenever I present a different point of view than his.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
The challenge with your logic here is that it assumes that your "basic science" is 100% correct. Sadly this is not the case. If it was, we would be still using the exact same vaccines and such that we always have.
In reality, these things are constantly evolving, which is actually proof that they don?t have it figured out.
PLUS, do you want to volunteer your kids to see just how "ineffective" and "dangerous" these things might be? I know I wouldn?t. And the medical community is not going to support expensive studies that could result in less sales of the very drugs that make the $$ for them. Not to mention the thousands of lawsuits and litigation that they would be facing once they show the world that something they were doing was wrong or dangerous.
Think about it. Would you if you were in their shoes?
The most well intended individual facing financial ruin and jail time is not going to pursue something that has that potential outcome...
In reality, these things are constantly evolving, which is actually proof that they don?t have it figured out.
PLUS, do you want to volunteer your kids to see just how "ineffective" and "dangerous" these things might be? I know I wouldn?t. And the medical community is not going to support expensive studies that could result in less sales of the very drugs that make the $$ for them. Not to mention the thousands of lawsuits and litigation that they would be facing once they show the world that something they were doing was wrong or dangerous.
Think about it. Would you if you were in their shoes?
The most well intended individual facing financial ruin and jail time is not going to pursue something that has that potential outcome...
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
This is SENSITIVE SUBJECT for sure. We parents don?t ever want to feel like we have "done it wrong" or even worse, done something that will hurt our children.
As such, we, as parents, are the most closed minded about anything having to do with child rearing.
This subject is particularly hard because you cannot go back and undo what you have done, so if you are a parent who vaccinated according to the recommended schedule, then you are likely not to want to even consider the possibility of whether or not that was a good decision.
For those who haven?t vaccinated at all, or very little, they don?t want to consider that maybe they should have done some part of that.
This dynamic is played out all over the parenting spectrum. People adamantly supporting positions that are in complete conflict with each other and that cannot both be correct.
THEREFORE we all, parents in particular, need to parent on purpose. NOT reactively. Think. Research. Learn.
And Parent with an open mind realizing that maybe you don?t already have all the answers.
Parent with an idea that maybe the way you learned how to parent from your parents may OR may not be the right way to do things.
As such, we, as parents, are the most closed minded about anything having to do with child rearing.
This subject is particularly hard because you cannot go back and undo what you have done, so if you are a parent who vaccinated according to the recommended schedule, then you are likely not to want to even consider the possibility of whether or not that was a good decision.
For those who haven?t vaccinated at all, or very little, they don?t want to consider that maybe they should have done some part of that.
This dynamic is played out all over the parenting spectrum. People adamantly supporting positions that are in complete conflict with each other and that cannot both be correct.
THEREFORE we all, parents in particular, need to parent on purpose. NOT reactively. Think. Research. Learn.
And Parent with an open mind realizing that maybe you don?t already have all the answers.
Parent with an idea that maybe the way you learned how to parent from your parents may OR may not be the right way to do things.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
the problem with your logic is that the medical community in our country is treatment based vs. prevention based medicine in other countrys (ones that have to foot the $$ bill for health care). the reason is that there is more $$ directly and indirectly associated with "medicine" in this country than almost anything else. as such, the $$ incentive is sooo high that even with the best intended doctors and health care providers, we cannot get good clean information out of the medical communty. on top of that, are you going to volunteer your child to "test" the effects of multi-dose vaccines to see whether or not they have adverse effects? i know i am not and i dont think anyone wants to. so even IF the medical community wanted to test better, it would be quite hard. not to mention it is in thier financial DISinterest to do so. it would cost them money to do the research which would only result in less drugs sold. you do the math.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
the problem with your logic is that the medical community in our country is treatment based vs. prevention based medicine in other countrys (ones that have to foot the $$ bill for health care). the reason is that there is more $$ directly and indirectly associated with "medicine" in this country than almost anything else. as such, the $$ incentive is sooo high that even with the best intended doctors and health care providers, we cannot get good clean information out of the so called "someone who's studied at a professional school". on top of that, are you going to volunteer your child to "test" the effects of multi-dose vaccines to see whether or not they have adverse effects? i know i am not and i dont think anyone wants to. so even IF the medical community wanted to test better, it would be quite hard. not to mention it is in thier financial DISinterest to do so. it would cost them money to do the research which would only result in less drugs sold. you do the math.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measures 57 and 61: Crime and Punishment
please discuss the cost issue!!
how convienient that you never discussed the cost issue... shame on you.
how convienient that you never discussed the cost issue... shame on you.
posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Measures 57 and 61: Crime and Punishment
the COST argument is only valid in a bubble.
but in the real world the $$ cost to our society for effects of either of these bills is not as much as the cost of the consequences of the effects on our society from the crimes being commmited.
on subjects like shoplifting, the cost is specifically talked about and the actions taken, while expensive, are justified due to the fact that they are less than the cost of continued shoplifting.
why, on these measures, do we only use the cost of the jails and not look at the cost to society that the continued perpetrators of the crimes cost?
The powers that be overestimate the "cost" as a sort of shock factor. then again, if they measured the cost to all of us when people continue to commit these crimes, and did so in an effort to fight crime, maybe the number would be equally as large. hmmm... how can we get a truely accurate number for each to make an educated decision that would help us figure out how to solve this problem?
who knows... we might actually find out that better treatment AND better enforcement is cost effective once we know how much money we spend as a society paying for the effects of these crimes being committed.
but in the real world the $$ cost to our society for effects of either of these bills is not as much as the cost of the consequences of the effects on our society from the crimes being commmited.
on subjects like shoplifting, the cost is specifically talked about and the actions taken, while expensive, are justified due to the fact that they are less than the cost of continued shoplifting.
why, on these measures, do we only use the cost of the jails and not look at the cost to society that the continued perpetrators of the crimes cost?
The powers that be overestimate the "cost" as a sort of shock factor. then again, if they measured the cost to all of us when people continue to commit these crimes, and did so in an effort to fight crime, maybe the number would be equally as large. hmmm... how can we get a truely accurate number for each to make an educated decision that would help us figure out how to solve this problem?
who knows... we might actually find out that better treatment AND better enforcement is cost effective once we know how much money we spend as a society paying for the effects of these crimes being committed.
posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context
