Health Care BS

Comments 13

1. Graham wrote:

   You’ll have to forgive me on Clinton’s NAFTA stuff. I was 12.

   I had no idea about Edwards’s c-section cerebral palsy stuff.

   Please don’t lump me in with “the usual suspects” when you don’t know my positions.

   Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 10:12 pm ¶
2. Catron wrote:

   You’ll have to forgive me on Clinton’s NAFTA stuff. I was 12.

   Sorry. Relative youth doesn’t get you a free pass for being uniformed.

   I had no idea about Edwards’s c-section cerebral palsy stuff.

   There’s a way around this problem. It’s called “reading.”

   Please don’t lump me in with ‘the usual suspects’ when you don’t know my positions.

   Too late.

   Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 11:04 pm ¶
3. Ed Darrell wrote:

   1. Clinton’s anti-DDT jihad? He wanted Mexico to stop agricultural use, which drifted into the U.S., and which HAMPERS the fight against malaria.

   Incidentally, Mexico has never stopped using DDT to fight malaria, according to Mexico and W.H.O. But because of the agricultural overuse, DDT has ceased being as effective as it once was. Mexico has had good success with the Rachel Carson-approved integrated pest management system in the past four years. Wise use is generally the best use.

   Edwards’ cases were subject to cross examination and appellate review. If the science was bad, it was generally accepted at the time, or he couldn’t have won the cases.

   But don’t let the facts get in the way of a silly rant. The world needs more silly rants, really.

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 12:16 am ¶
4. Graham wrote:

   Sorry. Relative youth doesn’t get you a free pass for being uniformed.

   I absolutely agree. I am fully responsible for knowing every scientific-related political fact that I missed coming of age. My bad!

   There’s a way around this problem. It’s called “reading.”

   Again, a snarky non-response! Let’s play “Come up with who can find more facts the other person may or may not have written a blog article about!” Yippee!

   (I’m sorry I’ve been busy learning how to become a doctor. You’ll have to excuse my decisions to learn about managing an airway over posting on my blog and following every Democrat. I’m not a health policy wonk, see, I just play one online!)

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:12 am ¶
5. Catron wrote:

   I am fully responsible for knowing every scientific-related political fact that I missed coming of age.

   You have a choice: You can (1) mindlessly parrot the latest meme about McCain (or Bush or whomever) without learning the political context or (2) you can become a serious person.

   I’m sorry I’ve been busy learning how to become a doctor.

   LOL … Stop it … You’re killing me!

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:33 am ¶
6. Rich wrote:

   “Edwards’ cases were subject to cross examination and appellate review. If the science was bad, it was generally accepted at the time, or he couldn’t have won the cases.”

   True, if a consensus among twelve non-scientists constitutes “generally accepted.”

   I guess the appeals court reviewed all the science and made determinations on it as well? I must be misinformed about the role of the appellate court.

   Thanks for the early morning chuckle.

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 8:02 am ¶
7. Joe C. wrote:

   David, you have a great blog. I read it most days. However, you must stop it with the gratuitous quotations. No legitimate publication uses quotes in this fashion. There are plenty of devices that accomplish this same end. Use them.

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 10:17 am ¶
8. Catron wrote:

   Stop it with the gratuitous quotations.

   I’m glad you enjoy the blog, Joe.

   If you could be a little more specific with regard to “gratuitous quotations,” I’d be much obliged.

   Are you referring to the scare quotes I put around words like “progressive”?

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 10:42 am ¶
9. Stuart Browning wrote:

   It’s hard to believe that someone having a website explicitly advocating single-payer, socialized medicine would have no idea about John Edward’s past use of junk science - considering that Mr. Edward’s platform contained the most left-leaning health care proposals of the top three democratic contenders.

   Actually … come to think of it … it’s not that hard to believe.

   Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:01 pm ¶
10. Joe C. wrote:

    “Are you referring to the scare quotes I put around words like ‘progressive’?”

    Aye. So-called progressives would work just fine.

    Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶
11. Nurse K wrote:

    Republicans/McCain need to STFU about things like autism because it will alienate people like me who are Republicans due to the propensity of Republicans to reduce/not raise taxes, maintain a free-market economy, and kill bad guys.

    People like me may just not vote at all. As I’ve said, I’m not voting for anyone this election, only against.

    Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 10:52 am ¶
12. Catron wrote:

    Republicans/McCain need to STFU about things like autism.

    I’m inclined to agree. I wish all politicians would stop yakking about medical issues (including stem cell research) about which they haven’t learned the facts.

    I also wish our friends on the Left would stop applying a double standard based on the party of the politician.

    Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 11:12 am ¶
13. va doc wrote:

    a lot of us “progressive” Dems actually did think of John Edwards as a blood sucking lawyer who capitalized on junk science. Thats why it was good to see him drop out.

    The problem w/ McCain’s comments is that they pertain to an active area of public health where we are trying to get parents over an unfounded fear of vaccines. and he is just making it harder. Edwards is indeed an idiot but i dont think his junk science is going to increase the likelihood a woman will want a C-section over a vaginal birth.

    Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶

Post a Comment