- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/12/25 at 2:56 pm to SallysHuman
Yeah, I agree.
To get more specific, as a kid I got MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), DTwP (diptheria-tetanus-pertussis), OPV (oral polio vaccine), the total number of antigens in those 3 combo-vaccines was ~3000.
Kids today can get vaccines for the same diseases + Hib, Varicella, hepatitis A & B, rotavirus, flu, and more with <200.
To get more specific, as a kid I got MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), DTwP (diptheria-tetanus-pertussis), OPV (oral polio vaccine), the total number of antigens in those 3 combo-vaccines was ~3000.
Kids today can get vaccines for the same diseases + Hib, Varicella, hepatitis A & B, rotavirus, flu, and more with <200.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 2:56 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I feel there is room for varying opinions in the medical community on all sorts of treatments and preventatives. Seeing as how "science" changes, it'd be alarming if ALL of you were lemmings.
There is room, but the standard is that I present my evidence and they present their evidence and we discuss. We do this every day on rounds as we make clinical decisions. Why is it that I have to continually present the same evidence over and over and these people concerned with 'volume' do not? The standards for medical evidence are so crystalline that the fact they avoid evidence is a purposeful rhetorical choice.
You are making the mistake in assuming I won't consider evidence if it is presented. That is absolutely not true. I, unfortunately, have read nearly every idiotic study posted on here the last five years or so. The mistakes in them were so great and numerous but pointing them out did not seem to move anyone. I'm even more open to alternative approaches for COVID than many of my colleagues, even though the evidence doesn't support those approaches, as my view is that given the various serious sequalae of the disease, there is a psychological cost that causes people to reach for these alternative methods instinctively. Thus, I try entering a 'therapeutic alliance' with the patient, as I do with every treatment plan. When their methods invariably do not work, they are still open to my suggestions.
Amongst physicians themselves, there is a very standardized way of speaking and presenting evidence. But in this situation, only one side has to adhere to it. It is again extremely dishonest.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 2:57 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
To get more specific, as a kid I got MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), DTwP (diptheria-tetanus-pertussis), OPV (oral polio vaccine), the total number of antigens in those 3 vaccines was ~3000. Kids today can get vaccines for the same diseases + Hib, Varicella, hepatatis A & B, rotavirus, flu, and more with <200.
That's actually really cool information... and certainly something that parents questioning vaccines should be presented with.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 2:59 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You are making the mistake in assuming I won't consider evidence if it is presented.
You make this same mistake towards people with questions.
Tigerdoc... on the other hand actually presented something concrete that may actually inform a questioning new parent.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:02 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
The other thing that would be helpful for worried and skeptical people who are at risk for being taken advantage of by anti-vaccine propagandists is how many fewer total antigens kids are exposed to in vaccines compared to when we were all kids (I started getting vaccinated in the 70's). There are way more shots, but less risk.
I mean, in that view, you could buttress an argument about increasing the volume due to the relative sterility of the environment. And regardless, the issue is that no one sees massive pediatric wards any more. We have a functionally different relationship with disease now due to the efforts of public health and now we seem to have to argue over nonsense.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:04 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
You make this same mistake towards people with questions.
That might be the case, but the reality is that from my perspective, the sloppy work of my opponents gets a pass while I have to refer to consistent standards and that is seemingly okay with people. If there was a consistent body of evidence to buttress these claims, these people would have offered it. They don't and the fact they don't doesn't seem to inform people about their motives.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:14 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
but the reality is that from my perspective, the sloppy work of my opponents gets a pass while I have to refer to consistent standards and that is seemingly okay with people.
I've butted heads with you before and I understand that the way you practice in real life is much different than the way you present yourself on here.
With that said... you have an opportunity to influence either negatively or positively people that may have questions, issues or outright blanket skepticism on the issue of vaccines. I don't know why you choose, while making it clear you're a doctor, to be nasty and abrasive. It doesn't reflect well on your medical community.
quote:
They don't and the fact they don't doesn't seem to inform people about their motives.
What are the motives of medical professionals that take their frustrations out on laypeople online that simply want to chat about these things?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:14 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Nah. I'm still waiting for you to tell the class now what kind of doctor you are. Shouldn't be too hard. It's been a week.
Yes I know. You are obsessed with my personal life. It’s cringe. Move on.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:26 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
With that said... you have an opportunity to influence either negatively or positively people that may have questions, issues or outright blanket skepticism on the issue of vaccines. I don't know why you choose, while making it clear you're a doctor, to be nasty and abrasive. It doesn't reflect well on your medical community.
I have little patience for nonsense. The consequences of all this nonsense pose a real danger to public health. Most of my friends and colleagues avoid interacting with the lay public like this, but doing so in the fashion I have has helped me tremendously in person.
quote:
What are the motives of medical professionals that take their frustrations out on laypeople online that simply want to chat about these things?
That is its own pathology. I can just be an a-hole who is a doctor, you know? I mean, there are several specialties in medicine who are bigger assholes than me. I've nearly fought several ortho frickers and my god there is this one neurosurgeon who treats the nurses terribly that I want to headbutt.
My a-hole tone aside, in this respect about standards of evidence, I am completely right.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:26 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
We're trying to bring back illnesses that can deafen you, paralyze you, disable you, make you a lifetime ward of the state
there's a lot of evidence out there that the decrease in deadly diseases was a result of a clean and orderly modern society, because incidents of deadly communicable diseases were decreasing dramatically years before mass vaccination sprang up.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:27 pm to Crimson Wraith
They have been ignoring this study for decades.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:30 pm to winkchance
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:30 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The consequences of all this nonsense pose a real danger to public health.
You say the above, then the below..
quote:
Most of my friends and colleagues avoid interacting with the lay public like this, but doing so in the fashion I have has helped me tremendously in person.
Maybe interacting in this way helps *you*... but it certainly doesn't contribute to public health when you take the tack you've been taking in threads like these.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:34 pm to Masterag
quote:
there's a lot of evidence out there that the decrease in deadly diseases was a result of a clean and orderly modern society,
What? That's the foundation of modern epidemiology. Public health measures like clean water are directly linked to a decrease in cases. This isn't some hidden fact either. It is absolutely foundational to our understanding of infectious disease.
Mass vaccination served a very specific purpose, namely to target diseases which had a very high CFR, usually above 0.1% (a threshold we take seriously) and/or had serious potential sequalae that spurred vaccination campaigns. The rate of paralytic polio before vaccination was less than one percent, but the consequences of that, including life-long care, made it an easy decision to choose to vaccinate.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:39 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Maybe interacting in this way helps *you*... but it certainly doesn't contribute to public health when you take the tack you've been taking in threads like these.
Eh, this is sort of tone policing which only seems relevant for one side. The other side can call me all sorts of names, accuse me of random stuff, and again what is noteworthy is my tone to you. Maybe I will take it seriously when you start tone policing the other side too. Otherwise, we can remain on point despite my tone. I mean, accusing you of bad-faith is about as benign an accusation I can levy.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:41 pm to Masterag
public sanitation helps public health?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:45 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Eh, this is sort of tone policing which only seems relevant for one side.
I would normally agree with you... what makes this different is you are interacting this way while wearing your doctor hat. It's a little different.
quote:
The other side can call me all sorts of names, accuse me of random stuff, and again what is noteworthy is my tone to you.
You've mainly treated me like crap most of this thread and I did nothing to warrant it. Feel free to reread our interactions. I believe I even made a post asking why you were coming at me the way you were.
quote:
Maybe I will take it seriously when you start tone policing the other side too.
Honestly you're the only one that's been abrasive to me in this thread, without provocation.
quote:
I mean, accusing you of bad-faith is about as benign an accusation I can levy.
And it is wrong.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 3:50 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I would normally agree with you... what makes this different is you are interacting this way while wearing your doctor hat. It's a little different.
Have you seen the cadre of hit and run retards who follow me around?
quote:
You've mainly treated me like crap most of this thread and I did nothing to warrant it. Feel free to reread our interactions. I believe I even made a post asking why you were coming at me the way you were.
I've addressed this several times. The fact that you don't see the relationship between the different standards of evidence between myself and the other side is precisely the point.
quote:
Honestly you're the only one that's been abrasive to me in this thread, without provocation.
\My point is about consistency.
quote:
And it is wrong.
Eh, the selective approach to responding to points, especially salient points which undermine your hypothesis, makes me skeptical. I'd be much more willing to cede ground if in fact you ceded anything.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 4:10 pm to crazy4lsu
A little board sociology - there are definitely different implicit role expectations on threads like this that go something like this:
Doctor - institutional proxy, high-status know-it-all, moral authority
Skeptic / contrarian* - folk epistemic hero, truth-seeker, outsider
*sometimes anti-vax propagandist - rarely self-identified, often “just asking questions”
And there are different standards of evidence depending on your role. The doctor is expected to be factual, comprehensive, current, cautious, polite. The contrarian gets passes for these and is rewarded for being provocative, confident, selective, rhetorically agile. Know your role, baw.
Doctor - institutional proxy, high-status know-it-all, moral authority
Skeptic / contrarian* - folk epistemic hero, truth-seeker, outsider
*sometimes anti-vax propagandist - rarely self-identified, often “just asking questions”
And there are different standards of evidence depending on your role. The doctor is expected to be factual, comprehensive, current, cautious, polite. The contrarian gets passes for these and is rewarded for being provocative, confident, selective, rhetorically agile. Know your role, baw.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 4:15 pm
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News