I know, who'd have thought these words would leave my mouth. But today on Rush's show he touched on a subject that gets me just as riled as politics, and he was wrong! He talked about the breaking story today about Wakefield and how his study about the autism-MMR link was proven to be false. Rush went on to claim that this proved that there was no link between autism and MMR.
First of all that is a faulty claim, a red herring if you will. If I do a study that milk helps bones grow stronger, and it is later determined that I used faulty data, that does not prove that there is no link between milk and bone strength. It simply proves that I am a faulty scientist.
Second,
Wakefield was trying to prove a causal relationship between MMR and autism. Just because he was unable to do that doesn't mean there is no relationship between MMR and autism. To claim that causal relationships are the only ones that matter is absurd. I believe that MMR has a contributing relationship to autism. How much does it contribute? I'm not sure, but in all the research I've done, there does seem to be some link between the 3rd MMr and the onset of autistic symtoms. How many contributing but not causal relationships come into play in our lives everyday. For example, during this pregnancy if I consume sugary foods, I feel especially ill. Did the sugary foods cause the morning sickness? No, the pregnancy did. Did the sugary foods contribute to my feeling ill. Yes!
Thirdly,
A caller called in and stated that her child had had a seizure in-utero after she received a vaccination while pregnant. Rush said that "he was sorry that happened but why didn't that happen to everyone that got the shot? And unless it did then there was no proof that the shot triggered the seizure." To this idiotic statement I say: Why doesn't everyone that gets a sunburn get skin cancer? Why doesn't everyone go into labor on their due date. Why doesn't everyone that eats lots of sugar get diabetes? Because, Rush, everyone's body is very different and complex.
Can we not take precautions unless every single person gets ill over something? A shot can't injure someone unless it injures everyone according to Rush's logic? Crazy but there is a gov't organization set up to compensate people that are hurt by vaccines. In fact $11.15 of the approximately $15 you spend per shot goes to compesate those that have been injured. I'd say that's pretty significant proof of the government admitting that people get hurt by vaccines.
Then Rush stated that this was nothing more than the liberals trying to push a nanny state. What?? Where did that come from? I'd have to say that pushing vaccination is way more of a nanny state mentality than questioning vaccination. I have a friend that studied to be a pediatrician. He said that they studied vaccination for about 30 minutes one day. He said that the professor showed them one graph and then gave everybody a pamphlet to give patients to convince them to vaccinate their children.
Now to all you thinkers out there, what sounds more like a nanny-state? The doctors being told to push vaccination (that they haven't really studied) through fear and indoctrination tactics, or just by telling you that your kids won't be able to go to school. OR A study that tried to show there might be some danger to vaccinations and to proceed with caution? Sorry Rush but your arguments are ridiculous and today I was very disappointed in you!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Liberal, Socialist conjecture of Christ
Merry Christmas!
If I see one more liberal/socialist talking about how Christ was this great socialist, I'm going to bleed from my eyes! Especially if that liberal/socialist is Mormon, and also uses the term "teabagger". Seriously?!?! Could you be more disgusting? Oh wait...no you're a liberal. Libs/Socialists mock conservatives for claiming that God is on their side, but they do the same thing by claiming that Christ was a socialist. You're not fooling anyone.
"My concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right"---Abraham Lincoln
CHRIST WASN'T A SOCIALIST! Christ didn't tell the rich man to sell all he owned and give the money to the government, so that they could redistribute it through welfare and socialized healthcare. Christ taught that individuals need to care for the poor not have government care for the poor. That is false phylanthrophy, and not the proper role of government. If you are dependant on the government for food, shelter, etc you are no longer a citizen but subject to the bureaucracy and their whims. Christ's phrase "render unto Cesear" can be understood the same as the 12th article of faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. It didn't mean that the rich should be punished, or that the government was always right and had all authority or even that the government did anything right. He was telling his believers to obey the law! He also wasn't saying that rights originate with government!
My question for Lib Mormons is where exactly do you think socialism will lead? Do you truly believe that the government can some how usher in the law of consecration? Because I can think of several instances where socialism/communism pulled the people as far away from the law of consecration as is humanly possible....like China, Russia, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea. Now you libtards will all say that those were the implementation of Communism not socialism, but let's be honest with ourselves; socialism is merely communism's little brother. Communism is the end result of the walk down socialism lane. And communism is Satan's imitation of the law of consecration. They are not the same, nor do they truly have the same goals.
Only by individuals changing their hearts and turning to Christ can we build a true Zion. That has nothing to do with the government, because the government can change no one's heart or mind. Socialism (as well as Obama) calls for collective salvation. Mormons stand up (even if you are a dillusional libtard) this a huge contradiction to what Christ taught. Salvation is individual. It is between you and Christ. Modern prophets have echoed that teaching in recent conferences.
Also socialism does advocate theft! It advocates that the government take the money collected through taxes (heaviest on the rich) and redistribute it. Now if I took your money and gave it to someone who was in need, you would have me thrown in jail. Riddle me this? Why do we excuse the goverment for doing things that are morally wrong? Which FYI the poor in america are doing pretty well. I mean when was the last time people were dying on the streets because they couldn't get food?
If I see one more liberal/socialist talking about how Christ was this great socialist, I'm going to bleed from my eyes! Especially if that liberal/socialist is Mormon, and also uses the term "teabagger". Seriously?!?! Could you be more disgusting? Oh wait...no you're a liberal. Libs/Socialists mock conservatives for claiming that God is on their side, but they do the same thing by claiming that Christ was a socialist. You're not fooling anyone.
"My concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right"---Abraham Lincoln
CHRIST WASN'T A SOCIALIST! Christ didn't tell the rich man to sell all he owned and give the money to the government, so that they could redistribute it through welfare and socialized healthcare. Christ taught that individuals need to care for the poor not have government care for the poor. That is false phylanthrophy, and not the proper role of government. If you are dependant on the government for food, shelter, etc you are no longer a citizen but subject to the bureaucracy and their whims. Christ's phrase "render unto Cesear" can be understood the same as the 12th article of faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. It didn't mean that the rich should be punished, or that the government was always right and had all authority or even that the government did anything right. He was telling his believers to obey the law! He also wasn't saying that rights originate with government!
My question for Lib Mormons is where exactly do you think socialism will lead? Do you truly believe that the government can some how usher in the law of consecration? Because I can think of several instances where socialism/communism pulled the people as far away from the law of consecration as is humanly possible....like China, Russia, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea. Now you libtards will all say that those were the implementation of Communism not socialism, but let's be honest with ourselves; socialism is merely communism's little brother. Communism is the end result of the walk down socialism lane. And communism is Satan's imitation of the law of consecration. They are not the same, nor do they truly have the same goals.
Only by individuals changing their hearts and turning to Christ can we build a true Zion. That has nothing to do with the government, because the government can change no one's heart or mind. Socialism (as well as Obama) calls for collective salvation. Mormons stand up (even if you are a dillusional libtard) this a huge contradiction to what Christ taught. Salvation is individual. It is between you and Christ. Modern prophets have echoed that teaching in recent conferences.
Also socialism does advocate theft! It advocates that the government take the money collected through taxes (heaviest on the rich) and redistribute it. Now if I took your money and gave it to someone who was in need, you would have me thrown in jail. Riddle me this? Why do we excuse the goverment for doing things that are morally wrong? Which FYI the poor in america are doing pretty well. I mean when was the last time people were dying on the streets because they couldn't get food?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sleeping on the Floor
My 2 year old daughter was pretty sick 3 weeks ago. She had a bad cough and would come into our room in the middle of the night, because her cough had woken her up. We would make her a bed on the floor, and she would feel safer and sleep later into the morning. So fast forward to last night. The cough is long gone, but every night around midnight, my daughter comes into our room with her blanket and babydoll. For a few nights we tried to take her back to bed. She would just get more and more frantic, while my husband I got more and more frustrated. Last night she came into our room at midnight and we decided to just let her sleep on our floor as long as she needs to.
But now I'm having visions of a 15-year old Maisy sleeping on our floor. We all sleep much better when she's on our floor. And by midnight my husband and I are going to sleep anyways, so she's not interfering with mommy/daddy time. So my first inclination is to go with the flow and make changes when she's ready. But should I be more firm and make her sleep in her own bed? I don't know if this is a battle that should be fought...any suggestions from more experienced parents would be appreciated. Mostly I'm just making it up as I go. Maisy should be very afraid!!!!
But now I'm having visions of a 15-year old Maisy sleeping on our floor. We all sleep much better when she's on our floor. And by midnight my husband and I are going to sleep anyways, so she's not interfering with mommy/daddy time. So my first inclination is to go with the flow and make changes when she's ready. But should I be more firm and make her sleep in her own bed? I don't know if this is a battle that should be fought...any suggestions from more experienced parents would be appreciated. Mostly I'm just making it up as I go. Maisy should be very afraid!!!!
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Don't Judge
How appropriate for Sunday! But I think that has been my lesson of the week. It has been brought to my attention several times this week, that I have made judgements without knowing all of the details. I find it really ironic that sometimes I have a problem with this, because there are many things that I do that people could easily judge me harshly for. This post is going to be incredibly short because Maisy is on my lap and typing with a two year old is kind of like that MSNBC ad where Keith Olberman was typing with his pointer fingers. I'm not judging...just saying I can now sympathize with him. Well my goal for the week is to stop myself when I start judging, because there is so much I don't see!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)