- Status
In an area the doctor should actually know something about, he gets it wrong, totally...
"CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that a backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak in California. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has linked childhood vaccines to autism despite the medical community debunking that myth.
During the second GOP debate, Tapper asked Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who now lives in West Palm Beach, if Trump should stop making such a claim.
Carson said Trump should look at the evidence, noting that there is "extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations."
Carson then turned the subject to the scheduling of vaccines:
"But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and I think are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate."
Are pediatricians cutting down on the number and proximity of vaccines? As for Trump’s claim about autism, as PolitiFact has noted before, decades of epidemiological research have demonstrated autism rates do not increase when vaccines are introduced to a population.
We contacted Carson’s campaign to ask for his evidence and did not get a reply.
Vaccines
Doctors follow a childhood vaccination schedule prepared by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Children may receive as many as 24 immunizations by their second birthday and may receive up to five injections during a single doctor’s visit, according to a 2013 paper by The Institute of Medicines of the National Academies. That vaccine schedule is also supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
More than 90 percent of children entering kindergarten have been immunized with recommended vaccines in accordance with this schedule. But some parents have sought to delay vaccines or reduce the number given per visit, while others have rejected them entirely, despite recommendations by the scientific community.
That’s not a good idea, according to the report.
"Delaying or declining vaccination has led to outbreaks of such vaccine-preventable diseases as measles and whooping cough that may jeopardize public health, particularly for people who are under-immunized or who were never immunized," wrote researchers.
The researchers also concluded that there is "no evidence that the schedule is unsafe."
The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a press release in 2013 stating that it agreed with the paper’s conclusion. After the Republican debate, it issued a new statement in support of vaccines:
"Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature. It is dangerous to public health to suggest otherwise," wrote Karen Remley, executive director of the academy.
Despite the scientific consensus, pediatricians are facing pressure from parents to delay vaccines.
A survey of 534 pediatricians done for the American Academy of Pediatricians in 2012 showed that 93 percent reported that within a typical month some parents asked to spread out the vaccinations. The vast majority thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease but thought they would build trust with the families if they agreed to the request.
While there is anecdotal evidence that some pediatricians have acquiesced to parents’ requests to delay vaccinations, that decision is not rooted in public health or science.
"There is no evidence that pediatricians 'recognize' that we give too many vaccines in too short a time," said Mark Schleiss, division director of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Minnesota. "Far from it. ... There is no evidence at all that spacing vaccines out or changing the schedule would improve health or help children."
Eugene R. Hershorin, chief of the division of general pediatrics at the University of Miami, pointed to what happened a decade ago when England and Japan delayed the DTaP vaccine, a combination vaccine used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
"There was a tremendous increase in the incidence of pertussis in both countries, leading them to re-institute the schedule immediately," he said.
Our ruling
Carson said pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been "too many in too short a period of time."
Leading medical organizations have concluded that the scheduling of vaccines -- including multiple ones at once -- is safe.
While there is evidence that some parents ask pediatricians to delay vaccines, that’s a decision based on parents’ wishes and isn’t based on scientific evidence.
There is no evidence that pediatricians are cutting down the number and proximity of vaccines based on any conclusion by them that there have been too many in too short a period of time.
Carson has provided no evidence to support his claim. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."
"CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that a backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak in California. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has linked childhood vaccines to autism despite the medical community debunking that myth.
During the second GOP debate, Tapper asked Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who now lives in West Palm Beach, if Trump should stop making such a claim.
Carson said Trump should look at the evidence, noting that there is "extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations."
Carson then turned the subject to the scheduling of vaccines:
"But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and I think are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate."
Are pediatricians cutting down on the number and proximity of vaccines? As for Trump’s claim about autism, as PolitiFact has noted before, decades of epidemiological research have demonstrated autism rates do not increase when vaccines are introduced to a population.
We contacted Carson’s campaign to ask for his evidence and did not get a reply.
Vaccines
Doctors follow a childhood vaccination schedule prepared by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Children may receive as many as 24 immunizations by their second birthday and may receive up to five injections during a single doctor’s visit, according to a 2013 paper by The Institute of Medicines of the National Academies. That vaccine schedule is also supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
More than 90 percent of children entering kindergarten have been immunized with recommended vaccines in accordance with this schedule. But some parents have sought to delay vaccines or reduce the number given per visit, while others have rejected them entirely, despite recommendations by the scientific community.
That’s not a good idea, according to the report.
"Delaying or declining vaccination has led to outbreaks of such vaccine-preventable diseases as measles and whooping cough that may jeopardize public health, particularly for people who are under-immunized or who were never immunized," wrote researchers.
The researchers also concluded that there is "no evidence that the schedule is unsafe."
The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a press release in 2013 stating that it agreed with the paper’s conclusion. After the Republican debate, it issued a new statement in support of vaccines:
"Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature. It is dangerous to public health to suggest otherwise," wrote Karen Remley, executive director of the academy.
Despite the scientific consensus, pediatricians are facing pressure from parents to delay vaccines.
A survey of 534 pediatricians done for the American Academy of Pediatricians in 2012 showed that 93 percent reported that within a typical month some parents asked to spread out the vaccinations. The vast majority thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease but thought they would build trust with the families if they agreed to the request.
While there is anecdotal evidence that some pediatricians have acquiesced to parents’ requests to delay vaccinations, that decision is not rooted in public health or science.
"There is no evidence that pediatricians 'recognize' that we give too many vaccines in too short a time," said Mark Schleiss, division director of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Minnesota. "Far from it. ... There is no evidence at all that spacing vaccines out or changing the schedule would improve health or help children."
Eugene R. Hershorin, chief of the division of general pediatrics at the University of Miami, pointed to what happened a decade ago when England and Japan delayed the DTaP vaccine, a combination vaccine used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
"There was a tremendous increase in the incidence of pertussis in both countries, leading them to re-institute the schedule immediately," he said.
Our ruling
Carson said pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been "too many in too short a period of time."
Leading medical organizations have concluded that the scheduling of vaccines -- including multiple ones at once -- is safe.
While there is evidence that some parents ask pediatricians to delay vaccines, that’s a decision based on parents’ wishes and isn’t based on scientific evidence.
There is no evidence that pediatricians are cutting down the number and proximity of vaccines based on any conclusion by them that there have been too many in too short a period of time.
Carson has provided no evidence to support his claim. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."
Or used known false and already discredited "intelligence" to justify the war he and his neocon buds had already decided on having.
Rummy got his neat little war to "prove" his theories, Dickie II and his buds got rich(er), and the True Believers got a chance to force their way of life on a nation of people who despise noth us and those values.
Epic Epic Fail
Worst President Ever, Anywhere
Rummy got his neat little war to "prove" his theories, Dickie II and his buds got rich(er), and the True Believers got a chance to force their way of life on a nation of people who despise noth us and those values.
Epic Epic Fail
Worst President Ever, Anywhere
Never denied Saddam was a "bad guy"
Only W and Co acted on poor and already discredited - by them own selves - intelligence to mislead Congress and the American People in order to justify the war they wanted.
It was not necessary to lie to the American People.
If the only way to depose Saddam was to invade and occupy Iraq, then make your case to the public and Congress, be honest about the reasons, the goals and the costs.
All the costs, including the above list, the tax increases needed to pay for it, and the need for their children and grandchildren to maintain the occupation for however many generations it takes to shove our way of life down the throats of a people who do not understand it and in fact despise it.
They knew that would go nowhere, so they used the fear of 9/11 and lied about the rest. "Quick little war", "Minimal Casualties", "We'll be greeted as liberators and heroes", " the Iraqi people are starving for democracy", etc...
Johnson backed into a war he didn't want, but they were honest about why.
They were honest about Korea, and we are still there
WW2 was obvious, and mostly everyone knew why they were making the sacrifices
W "The Decider" and Co lied to Congress and the people.
The public suppoerted the War On Terror, as in AQ and the Taliban, and those who support them. W turned his back on that war to pursue the NeoCons' puppet-gone-rogue of the day, and he lied about what we were doing, and why, and what the costs were.
Only W and Co acted on poor and already discredited - by them own selves - intelligence to mislead Congress and the American People in order to justify the war they wanted.
It was not necessary to lie to the American People.
If the only way to depose Saddam was to invade and occupy Iraq, then make your case to the public and Congress, be honest about the reasons, the goals and the costs.
All the costs, including the above list, the tax increases needed to pay for it, and the need for their children and grandchildren to maintain the occupation for however many generations it takes to shove our way of life down the throats of a people who do not understand it and in fact despise it.
They knew that would go nowhere, so they used the fear of 9/11 and lied about the rest. "Quick little war", "Minimal Casualties", "We'll be greeted as liberators and heroes", " the Iraqi people are starving for democracy", etc...
Johnson backed into a war he didn't want, but they were honest about why.
They were honest about Korea, and we are still there
WW2 was obvious, and mostly everyone knew why they were making the sacrifices
W "The Decider" and Co lied to Congress and the people.
The public suppoerted the War On Terror, as in AQ and the Taliban, and those who support them. W turned his back on that war to pursue the NeoCons' puppet-gone-rogue of the day, and he lied about what we were doing, and why, and what the costs were.
townpete said:
I guess y'all would be equally opposed to and outraged by this impositin of religious beliefs on our judicial system...
In Religious Arbitration, Scripture Is the Rule of Law - The New York Times
https://apple.news/A2aOT52UVQXmOHhMG6lhTDw
Sorry, I t doesn't fit a bumper sticker
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
As I recall, we were told that the invasion would only take a few months, we would be welcomed as liberators and the cost would be minimal as we would get paid back with oil.Ifly2 said:
Whether they actually believed that or were lying ... who knows. I worked witha guy who I think is a pathological liar. Nearly everything he said was a lie and could be prooved as a lie. When we called him out on a few of them he would deny that he said it even though a few of us heard it. He lied so convincingly and so easily that we all thought he did not know he was lying and belived his lies to be true. I have to wonder if there was not at least a little of this going on here.
I think the same may be going on with linton and the whole email thing. You get caught up in a lie and you have to keep digging for fear of being exposed.
I have yet to see a politician come out and admit .. "yea, I screwed up. Did not mean to but I own it.....".
" Cheney did because in 1994 he gaved an interview that predicted with amazing accuracy how it would go down. If he shared that knwledge with the rest of the Admin is unknown. "
I do not know how that got appendd to my post
I didn't write it
Cheney did know, Saddam was hs puppet
One he couodn't control
And, that, folks, is The Reason we invaded Iraq
The NeoCons' failed policy experiment, as in, yet another NeoCon failed policy experiment
I do not know how that got appendd to my post
I didn't write it
Cheney did know, Saddam was hs puppet
One he couodn't control
And, that, folks, is The Reason we invaded Iraq
The NeoCons' failed policy experiment, as in, yet another NeoCon failed policy experiment
southwind
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,709
- Reaction score
- 3,928
And the worst is yet to come....
"How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run!"
"What could bring Hillary down? According to some who have followed the case closely, Mrs. Clinton could be charged with breaking several laws, including willfully transmitting or retaining Top Secret material using a private server, unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or storing such information in an unauthorized location, lying to Congress, destruction of government property (wiping the server), lying under oath to a judge about having given the government all her emails or obstruction of justice."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run."http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run
Too bad BaRack doesn't have the FBI in his pocket!
"How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run!"
"What could bring Hillary down? According to some who have followed the case closely, Mrs. Clinton could be charged with breaking several laws, including willfully transmitting or retaining Top Secret material using a private server, unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or storing such information in an unauthorized location, lying to Congress, destruction of government property (wiping the server), lying under oath to a judge about having given the government all her emails or obstruction of justice."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run."http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run
Too bad BaRack doesn't have the FBI in his pocket!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
