do you have a severe allergy?

[Leisher]

That seems like the worst possible idea. Herpetologists can build up immunity to venom by tiny, gradually increasing injection amounts.

This.

My mother accidentally exposed our daughter to food with peanuts two times when she was allergic. At least two that I know of... The doctors thought she had no chance of being in the 20% that kicked it because it was too severe. Yet, she did. Was it because she was exposed to it? Maybe, maybe not.

I do know that studies have proven your kids getting filthy every now and then is better for them than them living in a sterile environment.

[TheCatt]

A few of our friends kids have peanut allergies, and they have been using exposure therapy to build up immunity. One of the kids went from 0 peanuts to 1.5 peanuts. But it requires constant, regular exposure. At least 1 other kid has outgrown it.

I do know that studies have proven your kids getting filthy every now and then is better for them than them living in a sterile environment.

Truth. It's why my kids don't have allergies.

[Vince]

That seems like the worst possible idea. Herpetologists can build up immunity to venom by tiny, gradually increasing injection amounts.

This.

My mother accidentally exposed our daughter to food with peanuts two times when she was allergic. At least two that I know of... The doctors thought she had no chance of being in the 20% that kicked it because it was too severe. Yet, she did. Was it because she was exposed to it? Maybe, maybe not.

I do know that studies have proven your kids getting filthy every now and then is better for them than them living in a sterile environment.

I'm glad your daughter outgrew the allergy/ How old is she now? When did she discover she'd outgrown the allergy?

Been reflecting on the admonishment from earlier. I think it isn't so much that I don't care about thee Epipen issue as much as I've reached the point where this isn't unexpected by me. Not preaching to anyone on this, but rather stating my mindset... everyone here knows that although I'm not a church goer, I am Christian. I read the Bible almost daily (not all at once) and try to live my life in an appropriate manner to that. More and more I'm seeing our culture become hostile to Christians and Christianity. If the CEO or whatever of this company had come out and said that as a Christian they are starting a program for the poor to ensure they have Epipens, they would have either been completely ignored or we'd have found a way to mock them. We've done so much to mock moral and/or Christian behavior, I just can't muster outrage when people act the way we've conditioned them to behave.

[Vince]

Ahhhhh... so it isn't a patent that's stopping competition. It's a recall of the product that is in competition with Epipen. I hope all the customers remember that when the Auvi-Q becomes available again.

[TPRJones]

If the CEO or whatever of this company had come out and said that as a Christian they are starting a program for the poor to ensure they have Epipens, they would have either been completely ignored or we'd have found a way to mock them.

I don't think this is true. I think you'd get the same result as if they came out and said that as a person who likes Nickleback they are starting that same program. Most people will applaud them for it. Many will wonder what in the world it has to do with liking Nickleback, but they'd still applaud. Only a very small number would decide that liking Nickleback is grounds for dismissing their generosity.

You may disagree, but I think for most people at this point the correlation between "Christian" and "good person" is just about on par with "Nickelback lover" and "good person". Meaning there is no correlation (nor an inverse correlation) so any such attribution may seem like a misnomer, but I don't think they be mocked for it as long as the program they are describing is itself widely perceived to be a good one.

[Vince]

You may disagree, but I think for most people at this point the correlation between "Christian" and "good person" is just about on par with "Nickelback lover" and "good person". Meaning there is no correlation (nor an inverse correlation) so any such attribution may seem like a misnomer, but I don't think they be mocked for it as long as the program they are describing is itself widely perceived to be a good one.

"Just Say No" and "Abstinence Program".

[TPRJones]

I did say "as long as the program they are describing is itself widely perceived to be a good one". Both of those programs you mention are bad. The first one fails to have any measurable effect on drug use. The second leads directly to increases in teen pregnancy. Both are enacted in ways that directly interfere with any chance of using other more effective programs.

Seriously, the single largest cause of abortions over the past 10 years as been abstinence-only education, and by a very wide margin. This is not hyperbole.

[GORDON]

Seriously, the single largest cause of abortions over the past 10 years as been abstinence-only education, and by a very wide margin. This is not hyperbole.

Correlation/causation?

[TPRJones]

Both. Most studies deal with the correlation of regional teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and the type of sex education provided. But some have looked specifically at individuals and show that while abstinence-only education does delay the initiation of sexual activity by 18 months students that only had abstinence-only education are eight times more likely to not use contraception when they do end up having sex. They are marginally less likely per incident of teen pregnancy to resort to abortion as a solution but the much higher incidence of teen pregnancies caused by abstinence-only education leads to a much higher number of abortions that would likely not have happened otherwise. That's causation.

EDIT: I guess that doesn't directly support my "single biggest" claim, but given the numbers involved I'm pretty comfortable with the assertation. Especially when you consider that abortion rates are overall in decline.

[Vince]

I did say "as long as the program they are describing is itself widely perceived to be a good one". Both of those programs you mention are bad. The first one fails to have any measurable effect on drug use. The second leads directly to increases in teen pregnancy. Both are enacted in ways that directly interfere with any chance of using other more effective programs.

Seriously, the single largest cause of abortions over the past 10 years as been abstinence-only education, and by a very wide margin. This is not hyperbole.

I can't say how effective the "Just say no" program was, but the attention placed on teen drug use during the Reagan administration saw a 47% drop in regular drug use among high school kids. And study after study show that kids that are abstain from sex until they are more emotionally developed have far fewer problems with self esteem issues and drug and alcohol abuse. But nothing you said addresses the mocking these programs were greeted with among the "enlightened" fucktards in academia.

Apparently only liberals are allowed to bee judged by their intentions rather than their results.

[TPRJones]

Apparently only liberals are allowed to bee judged by their intentions rather than their results.

If your intention is to force your religious beliefs on others, then I don't think that deserves any sort of credit. If your intention is to help provide epi pens for kids to not die, though, then I'll applaud it from anyone.

Study after study show that kids that are abstain from sex until they are more emotionally developed have far fewer problems with self esteem issues and drug and alcohol abuse.

Absolutely. And all those pregnant abstinence-only teens are likely a bit better adjusted than other pregnant teens. Too bad they have to be eight times more likely to become pregnant in the first place in exchange. If only there were some alternative like teaching them both abstinence AND how to be responsible when the time comes at the same time, but of course that is impossible.

[GORDON]

I only skimmed and I haven't done any research, but isn't it possible that the places with school boards that teach "abstinence-only" might also be the places where kids are poorest, most fundamentally religious, or have the least access to relatively expensive birth control in the first place? This is 2016, and yeah, not every kid has access to information, but I can't believe that more than 2% of them aren't learning where babies are made by the age of 10 from any schools.... (yeah that is shitty sentence structure...) my point being they know about contraception long before puberty. Not from schools or their parents.

I sez.

[Vince]

Apparently only liberals are allowed to bee judged by their intentions rather than their results.

If your intention is to force your religious beliefs on others, then I don't think that deserves any sort of credit. If your intention is to help provide epi pens for kids to not die, though, then I'll applaud it from anyone.

Ta da!!!

[Vince]

I only skimmed and I haven't done any research, but isn't it possible that the places with school boards that teach "abstinence-only" might also be the places where kids are poorest, most fundamentally religious, or have the least access to relatively expensive birth control in the first place? This is 2016, and yeah, not every kid has access to information, but I can't believe that more than 2% of them aren't learning where babies are made by the age of 10 from any schools.... (yeah that is shitty sentence structure...) my point being they know about contraception long before puberty. Not from schools or their parents.

I sez.

Utah has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country along with one of the lowest out of wedlock birth rates. The Mormons believe in abstinence only. Well... at least no direct intercourse. Though I think they technically teach no sex.

[Malcolm]

"Just Say No"

This is my world more than water belongs to Aquaman.

but the attention placed on teen drug use during the Reagan administration saw a 47% drop in regular drug use among high school kids.

Bull the fuck shit. Absolutely not. The drug policy of both those fucking chemical retards (because Nancy is as responsible), taken in whole over the children they brainwashed and the adults they unjustly jailed, was a fucking joke and cost far, far more cash than it ever could hope to make up. That stat you're quoting doesn't sound close to true, but even if it is it's cherry picking. Drug use on the whole went up during the '80s unless you start applying enough statistical bullshit or pick out a tiny number of substances over an equally tiny demographic and time frame.

And study after study show that kids that are abstain from sex until they are more emotionally developed have far fewer problems with self esteem issues and drug and alcohol abuse.

God gave people dicks, vaginas, assholes, hands, and mouths on purpose. Most abstinence teaching involves telling teens not to use them, preferably with heavy emphasis on fear, shame, or sexual ignorance. Shit, even the Puritans that first colonized the US let their young people grope each other. Yes, I am fucking completely, 100% I-shit-you-not serious. Add onto it the fact that it makes them boring as hell in the bedroom if/when they ever get awkwardly married. Practice makes perfect with everything ... oops, except fucking.

Utah has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country along with one of the lowest out of wedlock birth rates.

In reverse order: (i) heavy religious tradition and (ii) a Texas-style horseshit outlawing of nearly all abortion clinics.

[TheCatt]

This chart is interesting, as it implies that fear or drugs reduced consumption, implying the effectiveness of Just Say No like Vince mentioned.

Drug use on the whole went up during the '80s unless you start applying enough statistical bullshit

You have to look at the people in DARE and Just Say No, which would be people just younger than me (see chart above).


Oh, hey, look, cocaine use fell from 1980.

[TPRJones]

This chart is interesting, as it implies that fear or drugs reduced consumption, implying the effectiveness of Just Say No like Vince mentioned.

No, you are reading it exactly backwards. Read the title again. "Marijuana Past-Year Use vs. Perceived Risk among 12th Graders" That means 12th graders who have used marijuana in the last year do not fear it. That says that when those kids use the drug they find out that everything they were taught about the dangers of the Devil's Weed were all bullshit.

You have to look at the people in DARE and Just Say No, which would be people just younger than me (see chart above).

Sure, maybe they become slightly less likely to use drugs (although cocaine was on the way out after the 80s anyway so that chart may be more about national changes in drug use than the program but whatever). And they also became more likely to be completely incapable as adults to deal with situations where drugs come up. I'd bet good money that all those moronic 911 calls about "I accidentally ate a brownie with pot and I'm dying" are mostly the legacy of the DARE campaign.

My problems with DARE and Just Say No are not about teaching kids not to use drugs. They are about the fact that they flat out lie about drugs to scare kids into not using them. They are the opposite of education in every way and it makes them less capable adults, either because they will freak out if they ever to come into contact with drugs or they will not swallow the bull and will devalue education in general.

[Leisher]

I'm glad your daughter outgrew the allergy/ How old is she now? When did she discover she'd outgrown the allergy?

Thanks, she's 7. They do tests every year to check on the allergies, particularly the life threatening ones. I sat in a hospital room with her while they gave her peanut butter on pieces of bread or cracker. Took about 4 hours before they declared her to have kicked it. If I remember correctly, that was 2 years ago.

Been reflecting on the admonishment from earlier.

I didn't type that post in anger, so no worries. I was simply giving you guys information that you didn't have.

More and more I'm seeing our culture become hostile to Christians and Christianity.

I'm agnostic, and I agree with your statement. I also don't think it's a great trend. Not that I think people should be bible thumpers. I mean, religion has murdered more people than pretty much anything else on the planet, although I'm sure socialism is pissed to hear me say that... I think there's a place for religion and some of the morals it teaches. I also think absolute faith in the lack of a supreme being is as much of a religion as absolute faith in the existence of one.

Ahhhhh... so it isn't a patent that's stopping competition. It's a recall of the product that is in competition with Epipen. I hope all the customers remember that when the Auvi-Q becomes available again.

Unless that recall has been going on for 8 years, it's not the recall.

Don't discount physicians' role in this price gouging either. We were never told of the alternative product or if we were, they told us not to go that route. That's not to say that the doctors are in on the gouging, but the difference in the product is enough that they're pushing one over the other.

[GORDON]

I also think absolute faith in the lack of a supreme being is as much of a religion as absolute faith in the existence of one.

I've always disagreed with that attitude. It isn't that I have "faith" in the absence of a deity watching over humanity, it is that I have never seen any evidence for the existence of one.... and quite the contrary. I have seen plenty of things that suggest there isn't one. So my "disbelief," or "lack of faith..." two phrases that I don't think fit my attitude at all... are just as strong in my "disbelief" that pigs are going to grow wings and fly, or my "belief" that the way to calculate the area of a right triangle is with Pythagoras's Theorum. There's no "faith" anywhere in the mix, and I my understanding of Euclidean geometry.... and the lack of porcine aerodynamics... has nothing to do with any system of faith, or religion. So where does that leave us.

[TPRJones]

Exactly. There is a presumption among the religious that religious belief is a special category and that athiests are people that have a certain position in that category. But from the athiest point of view religion is not a special category, and calling a lack of belief in god a type of religious belief makes as much sense from that end as calling a lack of belief in the Bush-did-911 conspiracy as a religious belief.