You can’t provide a single example of me attacking a poster here with personal vitriol that is not a response in kind and after the fact. Not a single one.
Well the CR thread is a couple degens posting gore images and action figurines with blood squirting out the throat as a good time get along. And if you point out the degeneracy they call you pathological. So I guess it’s all relative really.
Also the black looks like an SR5, but has the TRD pro heritage grille. Makes a really big difference imo on the gen 5. If I got the white, I would play with that do a front end bumper job as well. Even black vinyling the cross bars on the grille would be huge imo. I strongly prefer the white with a few tweeks.
I believe that some of the posters on this sub are total degenerates, and this sub is generally an extremely poor reflection of the University most of us claim to have attended and trained at.
I am not ignoring anything you lunatic. Yesterday they recommended MMR+V exclusively for children under 4; which was already the default recommendation. I don't agree with a move that restricts coverage in the VFC program for first dose. I am not sure that any coverage decisions should be tied to ACIP guidance (as opposed to say, FDA approved indications). But to be clear here, there is no functional difference in the coverage provided for first dose, and the combined MMRV shot will still be included in the program for second dose.
Been on conference calls and didn't get to listen to that part of the meeting to see how it unfolded. I'll comment on it at some point if you really want to hear my thoughts.
LOL. You are functionally doing in your second sentence what you are accusing me of in your first. What a clown.
Y'all continue to fall back time and time again on coverage issues. I get that. Cause you can't actually defend the recommendations as medical evidence based. These are very very different issues, conflating the dysfunction of our health care financing system with public health recommendations. I think that insurers should just open the flood gates. Cover all the people and all situations, no matter how many pins they want sticking out of the cushion. AHIP has actually taken this stance. They don't really have any authority. And fn morons will wonder why their premiums continue to go up.
The serial obsessive negging practiced by some here reflects poor upbringing and antisocial tendencies. This board has a lot of personality disorders present.
I know that you don't really know what you are talking about and just want to sniff your finger, but MMR+V administration costs more than MMRV. Component costs are similar, admin costs are higher. Any payer with a basic understanding of the economics involved will cover both and actually prefer MMRV. But if they actually did that in an alternate universe with a different political environment, lunatics like you would be screaming into the box you have over your head about the payers preferring vaccines with higher rates of febrile seizures to save a couple dollars at the expense of children.
You guys live in a really self-assured fantasy land.
I can't want to watch Dahobbs melt down tomorrow and start impugning people's morality when they recommend that children of mothers with test negative confirmation wrt HepB don't have to get vaccinated within 24 hours of their first breath. BuT dA ScIenCe!1!1
One of the interesting aspects of the meeting today, was that the committee appears to have disconnected the VFC coverage criteria from the ACIP vaccine recommendations.
You are unhinged and being disingenuous.
The recommendation tweak is minimal here. Read the ACIP background materials you fn clown. CDC was already default recommending MMR+V as separate vaccines for first dose admin in children under 4. MMRV as a combined shot was a opt in thing that fewer than 15% of individuals took.