Here is the link:
Well-known conspiracy theorist's website purports to give out medical advice.
Let's start with the most obvious lie... The article linked to doesn't even mention Thimerosal. A few replies do, but the article does not. Instead, the article lists all of the possible side-effects of the vaccine, implies strongly that anyone taking the vaccine will experience all of them, and then speculates about possible additional side effects not listed, while implying that the government and the makers of the vaccine are conspiring to keep those off the list of side effects.
Wow.
Here are some select quotes from the article...
QUOTE (Alex Jones+)
First of all, if you blindly trust that the swine flu vaccine or even the regular seasonal flu vaccine is perfectly safe, then you are being completely and totally reckless.
This is -while not completely true- actually not bad advice. Blindly trusting any medical procedure is reckless in the extreme. If you don't think so, I'll happily cure any ailment you have by pissing in your mouth. Seriously. And I only charge a hundred bucks a pop!
But you see... The problem is not with the actual, literal contents of the quote, but with the spirit and context in which it is made.
No-one who gets the vaccine is blindly trusting anything. They are listening to actual fuсking experts!!!!! who tell them that it is safe. The CDC's website, arguably the website with the most impetus to remain honest about any such issue, claims that people should get the vaccine, and that it is as safe as can be expected.
On the flip side, Jonesy seems to be implying that not getting your children vaccinated against a potentially lethal fuсking virus!!!!!!!!!! is somehow not reckless. How stupid can one person be?
This is -while not completely true- actually not bad advice. Blindly trusting any medical procedure is reckless in the extreme. If you don't think so, I'll happily cure any ailment you have by pissing in your mouth. Seriously. And I only charge a hundred bucks a pop!
But you see... The problem is not with the actual, literal contents of the quote, but with the spirit and context in which it is made.
No-one who gets the vaccine is blindly trusting anything. They are listening to actual fuсking experts!!!!! who tell them that it is safe. The CDC's website, arguably the website with the most impetus to remain honest about any such issue, claims that people should get the vaccine, and that it is as safe as can be expected.
On the flip side, Jonesy seems to be implying that not getting your children vaccinated against a potentially lethal fuсking virus!!!!!!!!!! is somehow not reckless. How stupid can one person be?
QUOTE (Jonesy+)
Of course anyone who has been studying vaccine side effects already knows that it causes all of these things, but the story here is that the insert for the swine flu vaccine itself is admitting all of these things.
I love this one... The implication that Jonesy has been studying vaccine side effects, the implication that other vaccines don't admit to causing any side effects and the implication that (naturally) you will experience all of these side effects if you take the vaccine.... I'ts a hoot and a half, I tell ya.
But that's not all.... This email (which I've unfortunately committed to memory, but wisely deleted already) went on to explicitly claim that Thimerosal is industrial waste.
That's right folks, it's not a preservative (Despite the email's author having previously admitted that it was), it's industrial waste!
The email claims that the vaccine contains a dose of Thimerosal which exceeds the lethal dose of ethylmercury, and then goes on to point out that the vaccines contains 25 µg of ethylmercury. A little tip? That's well below the lethal dose.
To top it all off, we're reminded of the autism scare. Andrew Wakefield is cited as an authority who reminds us that his (falsified, discredited, unethical and strongly biased) research indicated a link between Thimerosal and autism.
Finally, they link to the CDC's website, purportedly to illustrate the dangers to children. Here's the link: CDC - Thimerosal in Seasonal Influenza Vaccine
Notice two things about the link...
1. Thimerosal-containing vaccines are said to be SAFE, not dangerous.
2. Thmerosal-free vaccines are available for children, and indeed, constitute the majority of those vaccines received by children.
So when will it all end? EVERY MAJOR CLAIM of the anti-vaccination crowd is utter bullѕhit! Yet for some reason, they continue to spew their nonsense with impunity, convincing people throughout the US and UK to refuse a potentially life-saving vaccine. People are dying because of the deliberate misinformation being spread by these people. Shouldn't that be enough to take legal action against these people? I mean, at the very least, they are undoubtedly (I already asked a lawyer, and this is true) liable for wrongful death lawsuits.
My opinion is this: Anyone spreading demonstratively false information about vaccines against potentially fatal diseases should be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Because that is exactly what they are doing.
And the worst part is this: They have nothing at all to gain but the feeling of being "in-the-know". So the next child who dies of H1N1 because his or her parents wouldn't vaccinate them will have died for no reason other than to make some complete retard feel smart.
I love this one... The implication that Jonesy has been studying vaccine side effects, the implication that other vaccines don't admit to causing any side effects and the implication that (naturally) you will experience all of these side effects if you take the vaccine.... I'ts a hoot and a half, I tell ya.
But that's not all.... This email (which I've unfortunately committed to memory, but wisely deleted already) went on to explicitly claim that Thimerosal is industrial waste.
That's right folks, it's not a preservative (Despite the email's author having previously admitted that it was), it's industrial waste!
The email claims that the vaccine contains a dose of Thimerosal which exceeds the lethal dose of ethylmercury, and then goes on to point out that the vaccines contains 25 µg of ethylmercury. A little tip? That's well below the lethal dose.
To top it all off, we're reminded of the autism scare. Andrew Wakefield is cited as an authority who reminds us that his (falsified, discredited, unethical and strongly biased) research indicated a link between Thimerosal and autism.
Finally, they link to the CDC's website, purportedly to illustrate the dangers to children. Here's the link: CDC - Thimerosal in Seasonal Influenza Vaccine
Notice two things about the link...
1. Thimerosal-containing vaccines are said to be SAFE, not dangerous.
2. Thmerosal-free vaccines are available for children, and indeed, constitute the majority of those vaccines received by children.
So when will it all end? EVERY MAJOR CLAIM of the anti-vaccination crowd is utter bullѕhit! Yet for some reason, they continue to spew their nonsense with impunity, convincing people throughout the US and UK to refuse a potentially life-saving vaccine. People are dying because of the deliberate misinformation being spread by these people. Shouldn't that be enough to take legal action against these people? I mean, at the very least, they are undoubtedly (I already asked a lawyer, and this is true) liable for wrongful death lawsuits.
My opinion is this: Anyone spreading demonstratively false information about vaccines against potentially fatal diseases should be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Because that is exactly what they are doing.
And the worst part is this: They have nothing at all to gain but the feeling of being "in-the-know". So the next child who dies of H1N1 because his or her parents wouldn't vaccinate them will have died for no reason other than to make some complete retard feel smart.
Although i dont disagree with anything you wrote, i would like to make the observation that where i live, the government went head over heels to bring this H1N1 vaccine to the public ( subsidised by the taxpayer ). This has so far looked like a very big over-reaction, but what has me interested is that someone, someone in the middle, has made a very substantial profit from the money that the taxpayer put upfront to pay for the cost of this. Is this just another case of politicians and big business capitilising public money? Somebody please tell me otherwise....
Why would the government have a vested interest in not seeing the youngest and oldest of its citizens die of preventable causes? The questions you raise seem really thought-provoking -- in the eighteenth century.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.preamble.html
"We ... in order to ... promote the general welfare ... establish this Constitution"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...i.html#section8
"The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare"
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...00--aa001-.html
"US Code TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6A, SUBCHAPTER XIX, Part 1, § 300aa–1
The Secretary shall establish in the Department of Health and Human Services a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The Program shall be administered by a Director selected by the Secretary."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.preamble.html
"We ... in order to ... promote the general welfare ... establish this Constitution"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...i.html#section8
"The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare"
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...00--aa001-.html
"US Code TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6A, SUBCHAPTER XIX, Part 1, § 300aa–1
The Secretary shall establish in the Department of Health and Human Services a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The Program shall be administered by a Director selected by the Secretary."
QUOTE (Matador+Oct 9 2009, 02:27 AM)
Although i dont disagree with anything you wrote, i would like to make the observation that where i live, the government went head over heels to bring this H1N1 vaccine to the public ( subsidised by the taxpayer ). This has so far looked like a very big over-reaction,
An overreaction? To a potentially deadly disease? There's no such thing. That's like saying carrying a can of mace is an overreaction for a woman who lives in an urban center and walks to and from work late at night. Just like with H1N1, the odds of her dying are pretty low (actually, quite a bit lower than with this virus), but it's a strong enough possibility to bear preparing for.
Pressure to procure the vaccine quickly = overtime for research staff, additional power consumption for equipment use, additional supplies, additional animal and (paid) volunteer testing. Profits tend to shrink very very quickly under these sorts of situations. Next time, put a little thought into your conspiracy theories. The people who benefit the most from this sort of thing are the front-line researchers who earn all this overtime, not the big companies who might see their profit margins increase by 0.1% and get a little PR boost.
Pressure to procure the vaccine quickly = overtime for research staff, additional power consumption for equipment use, additional supplies, additional animal and (paid) volunteer testing. Profits tend to shrink very very quickly under these sorts of situations. Next time, put a little thought into your conspiracy theories. The people who benefit the most from this sort of thing are the front-line researchers who earn all this overtime, not the big companies who might see their profit margins increase by 0.1% and get a little PR boost.
Is this just another case of politicians and big business capitilising public money? Somebody please tell me otherwise....
Otherwise.
An overreaction? To a potentially deadly disease? There's no such thing. That's like saying carrying a can of mace is an overreaction for a woman who lives in an urban center and walks to and from work late at night. Just like with H1N1, the odds of her dying are pretty low (actually, quite a bit lower than with this virus), but it's a strong enough possibility to bear preparing for.
QUOTE
but what has me interested is that someone, someone in the middle, has made a very substantial profit from the money that the taxpayer put upfront to pay for the cost of this.
Pressure to procure the vaccine quickly = overtime for research staff, additional power consumption for equipment use, additional supplies, additional animal and (paid) volunteer testing. Profits tend to shrink very very quickly under these sorts of situations. Next time, put a little thought into your conspiracy theories. The people who benefit the most from this sort of thing are the front-line researchers who earn all this overtime, not the big companies who might see their profit margins increase by 0.1% and get a little PR boost.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| but what has me interested is that someone, someone in the middle, has made a very substantial profit from the money that the taxpayer put upfront to pay for the cost of this. |
Pressure to procure the vaccine quickly = overtime for research staff, additional power consumption for equipment use, additional supplies, additional animal and (paid) volunteer testing. Profits tend to shrink very very quickly under these sorts of situations. Next time, put a little thought into your conspiracy theories. The people who benefit the most from this sort of thing are the front-line researchers who earn all this overtime, not the big companies who might see their profit margins increase by 0.1% and get a little PR boost.
Is this just another case of politicians and big business capitilising public money? Somebody please tell me otherwise....
Otherwise.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Why would the government have a vested interest in not seeing the youngest and oldest of its citizens die of preventable causes? The questions you raise seem really thought-provoking -- in the eighteenth century.
You have to understand that conspiracy theorists have no concept of a government "for the people, by the people." To them, the government is the sinister others whom mankind has been fearful of since we first started developed language. They don't understand that the government is made of of people who -like them- have families, friends, hobbies, political views, fears, jobs and plans for the future. They're not real people, due to their involvement in the government.
You have to understand that conspiracy theorists have no concept of a government "for the people, by the people." To them, the government is the sinister others whom mankind has been fearful of since we first started developed language. They don't understand that the government is made of of people who -like them- have families, friends, hobbies, political views, fears, jobs and plans for the future. They're not real people, due to their involvement in the government.
Fair enough, lots of valid points, but, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on a vaccine that now is just sitting on shelves. I guess an over-reaction is better than nothing.
And please I am not trying to involve 'conspiracy' theories. It is quite common knowledge that a lot of politicians have interests in business, shares or stand to gain personally from 'political' donations
And please I am not trying to involve 'conspiracy' theories. It is quite common knowledge that a lot of politicians have interests in business, shares or stand to gain personally from 'political' donations
Here's a site for ongoing swine flu statistics.
http://www.flucount.org/
It's especially disconcerting if many people opt out of the flu vaccines for the non-swine flu varieties too. Whereas H1N1 has killed 821 in the U.S. so far (according to this site), tens of thousands can die from non-H1N1 flu in any given year, and for flu only; it's not including flu accompanied by pneumonia. I wonder how more widespread all influenzas could be this year if millions are swayed to opt out.
I've been hearing conflicting information regarding the safety of taking H1N1 vaccine along with the one CDC selects for each season. I have read that both can be taken. Pertinent info would be welcome.
http://www.flucount.org/
It's especially disconcerting if many people opt out of the flu vaccines for the non-swine flu varieties too. Whereas H1N1 has killed 821 in the U.S. so far (according to this site), tens of thousands can die from non-H1N1 flu in any given year, and for flu only; it's not including flu accompanied by pneumonia. I wonder how more widespread all influenzas could be this year if millions are swayed to opt out.
I've been hearing conflicting information regarding the safety of taking H1N1 vaccine along with the one CDC selects for each season. I have read that both can be taken. Pertinent info would be welcome.
QUOTE (Matador+Oct 9 2009, 05:23 PM)
Fair enough, lots of valid points, but, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on a vaccine that now is just sitting on shelves. I guess an over-reaction is better than nothing.
Why would you think that it's just sitting on shelves? Where do you get that from? Everything I've ever seen about the dissemination of this vaccine indicates that it's being spread across the landscape of every developed nation affected at a respectable rate.
You strongly implied that you believe this is an example of big businesses and the governments using the fear of this virus as an excuse to make money. That is a conspiracy. Since you haven't proven this to be true, it's just a theory. Hence: You're spouting a conspiracy theory.
You strongly implied that you believe this is an example of big businesses and the governments using the fear of this virus as an excuse to make money. That is a conspiracy. Since you haven't proven this to be true, it's just a theory. Hence: You're spouting a conspiracy theory.
It is quite common knowledge that a lot of politicians have interests in business, shares or stand to gain personally from 'political' donations
Vaccines != political donations.
It took a long time to get here, (i am not in US) and its only been available since september 30. Currently the uptake rate by the population is slow, hence my comment 'just sitting on shelves'.
here's a quote from this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/national...90918-fuyz.html
It took a long time to get here, (i am not in US) and its only been available since september 30. Currently the uptake rate by the population is slow, hence my comment 'just sitting on shelves'.
here's a quote from this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/national...90918-fuyz.html
..government has already purchased 21 million doses of the vaccine...
for 21 million people..
Getting worked up over a crazy serial killer is understandable
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers. There are other diseases out there that have taken bigger bites but the media is dragging this new (relatively) virus on and on. Anyone still remember the bird flu?
Making ourselves, as a species of this planet, dependant on drugs and vaccines only hurts us in the long run. There is a bit of truth in the end of War of the Worlds (the new one, I never saw the old one). The last thing we need to do is change that truth.
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
And Europeans beat the North American Natives with disease not advanced technology.
Glad I don't have you as a history teacher.
Are antibiotics generic or do they have to match up with the bacteria? Also I would hate to see a mutated strain surface. Sometimes allowing those who have a natural immunity survive and multiply is the best course of action.
Are antibiotics generic or do they have to match up with the bacteria? Also I would hate to see a mutated strain surface. Sometimes allowing those who have a natural immunity survive and multiply is the best course of action.
Care to share your impressions?
What, besides....
What, besides....
One of the most contentious issues relating to disease depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which Europeans deliberately infected indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox. Cook asserts that there is no evidence that the Spanish attempted to infect the American natives.[14] The cattle introduced by the Spanish polluted the water reserves which Native Americans dug in the fields to accumulate rain water. In response, the Franciscans and Dominicans created public fountains and aqueducts to guarantee access to drinking water.[2] But when the Franciscans lost their privileges in 1572, many of these fountains were not guarded any more. Deliberate well poisoning may have happened.[2] Although no proof of such poisoning has been found, some historians believe the decrease of the population correlates with the end of religious orders' control of the water.[2]
and
Even though diseases were brought over and ran amuck through the native tribes, it was happenstance and even though that such would have certainly helped considerably in turning the tides of war to the favor of Europeans (as it was the leading cause of the decrease in their numbers), they didn't "beat" the natives with disease. The wars were fought by conventional means of that time but as for the means in which Europe has beaten the natives...Read everything under "Other causes of depopulation"
Why would you think that it's just sitting on shelves? Where do you get that from? Everything I've ever seen about the dissemination of this vaccine indicates that it's being spread across the landscape of every developed nation affected at a respectable rate.
QUOTE
And please I am not trying to involve 'conspiracy' theories.
You strongly implied that you believe this is an example of big businesses and the governments using the fear of this virus as an excuse to make money. That is a conspiracy. Since you haven't proven this to be true, it's just a theory. Hence: You're spouting a conspiracy theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And please I am not trying to involve 'conspiracy' theories. |
You strongly implied that you believe this is an example of big businesses and the governments using the fear of this virus as an excuse to make money. That is a conspiracy. Since you haven't proven this to be true, it's just a theory. Hence: You're spouting a conspiracy theory.
It is quite common knowledge that a lot of politicians have interests in business, shares or stand to gain personally from 'political' donations
Vaccines != political donations.
QUOTE
Why would you think that it's just sitting on shelves? Where do you get that from? Everything I've ever seen about the dissemination of this vaccine indicates that it's being spread across the landscape of every developed nation affected at a respectable rate.
It took a long time to get here, (i am not in US) and its only been available since september 30. Currently the uptake rate by the population is slow, hence my comment 'just sitting on shelves'.
here's a quote from this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/national...90918-fuyz.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why would you think that it's just sitting on shelves? Where do you get that from? Everything I've ever seen about the dissemination of this vaccine indicates that it's being spread across the landscape of every developed nation affected at a respectable rate. |
It took a long time to get here, (i am not in US) and its only been available since september 30. Currently the uptake rate by the population is slow, hence my comment 'just sitting on shelves'.
here's a quote from this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/national...90918-fuyz.html
..government has already purchased 21 million doses of the vaccine...
for 21 million people..
QUOTE (Matador+Oct 9 2009, 05:47 PM)
It took a long time to get here, (i am not in US) and its only been available since september 30.
That has more to do with time spent creating it and testing it than anything else. Your own link says as much, also.
That has more to do with people refusing to take it for the reasons I outlined above than anything else.
That has more to do with time spent creating it and testing it than anything else. Your own link says as much, also.
QUOTE
Currently the uptake rate by the population is slow, hence my comment 'just sitting on shelves'.
That has more to do with people refusing to take it for the reasons I outlined above than anything else.
Hi,
I visited soundhertz's shared site.
I am from India and from there got Unique information about Swine Flu Count.
Actually it update regularly after 4 minutes.
I visited soundhertz's shared site.
I am from India and from there got Unique information about Swine Flu Count.
Actually it update regularly after 4 minutes.
care to share?
People over react way too much...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/sc...swine-reality30
As with the regular flu it will mutate (probably has already) but just like the regular flu, the H1N1 will just become another one of the many types of "regular flu". Like any virus it will run it's cycle, thin out the Earth's population and be then of as nothing more than a seasonal thing.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/sc...swine-reality30
As with the regular flu it will mutate (probably has already) but just like the regular flu, the H1N1 will just become another one of the many types of "regular flu". Like any virus it will run it's cycle, thin out the Earth's population and be then of as nothing more than a seasonal thing.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 07:49 AM)
People over react way too much...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/sc...swine-reality30
As with the regular flu it will mutate (probably has already) but just like the regular flu, the H1N1 will just become another one of the many types of "regular flu". Like any virus it will run it's cycle, thin out the Earth's population and be then of as nothing more than a seasonal thing.
You just don't get it, do you? The whole point of the Doctor's statements in that article is that people shouldn't loose their heads about this new strain when the old strain is still there, and still as dangerous as ever.
I don't care if the death rate of some virus is 0.01%, I still want to see a vaccine for it, and I still think anyone who simply blows this off is as stupid as they come.
Oh, and from your article..
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/sc...swine-reality30
As with the regular flu it will mutate (probably has already) but just like the regular flu, the H1N1 will just become another one of the many types of "regular flu". Like any virus it will run it's cycle, thin out the Earth's population and be then of as nothing more than a seasonal thing.
You just don't get it, do you? The whole point of the Doctor's statements in that article is that people shouldn't loose their heads about this new strain when the old strain is still there, and still as dangerous as ever.
I don't care if the death rate of some virus is 0.01%, I still want to see a vaccine for it, and I still think anyone who simply blows this off is as stupid as they come.
Oh, and from your article..
QUOTE
Though scientists have begun to relax about the initial toll, they're considerably less comfortable when taking into account the fall flu season. They remain haunted by the experience of 1918, when the relatively mild first wave of flu was followed several months later by a more aggressive wave.
The longer the virus survives, the more chances it has to mutate into a deadlier form.
"If this virus keep going through our summer," Palese said, "I would be very concerned."
The longer the virus survives, the more chances it has to mutate into a deadlier form.
"If this virus keep going through our summer," Palese said, "I would be very concerned."
QUOTE
I still want to see a vaccine for it, and I still think anyone who simply blows this off is as stupid as they come.
Getting worked up over a crazy serial killer is understandable
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers. There are other diseases out there that have taken bigger bites but the media is dragging this new (relatively) virus on and on. Anyone still remember the bird flu?
Making ourselves, as a species of this planet, dependant on drugs and vaccines only hurts us in the long run. There is a bit of truth in the end of War of the Worlds (the new one, I never saw the old one). The last thing we need to do is change that truth.
Before drugs, the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population.
And Europeans beat the North American Natives with disease not advanced technology.
And Europeans beat the North American Natives with disease not advanced technology.
QUOTE
Before drugs, the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Before drugs, the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population |
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
And Europeans beat the North American Natives with disease not advanced technology.
Glad I don't have you as a history teacher.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 10:21 AM)
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
Have you forgotten about antibiotics? The Black Death was a bacterial disease, given proper use of antibiotics, it will never strike again.
Care to share your impressions?
Have you forgotten about antibiotics? The Black Death was a bacterial disease, given proper use of antibiotics, it will never strike again.
QUOTE
Glad I don't have you as a history teacher.
Care to share your impressions?
QUOTE
The Black Death was a bacterial disease, given proper use of antibiotics
Are antibiotics generic or do they have to match up with the bacteria? Also I would hate to see a mutated strain surface. Sometimes allowing those who have a natural immunity survive and multiply is the best course of action.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Black Death was a bacterial disease, given proper use of antibiotics |
Are antibiotics generic or do they have to match up with the bacteria? Also I would hate to see a mutated strain surface. Sometimes allowing those who have a natural immunity survive and multiply is the best course of action.
Care to share your impressions?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 01:03 PM)
Are antibiotics generic or do they have to match up with the bacteria? Also I would hate to see a mutated strain surface. Sometimes allowing those who have a natural immunity survive and multiply is the best course of action.
Antibiotics can work generally or specifically. The first and most famous antibiotic is Penicillin. Penicillin works by inhibiting the ability of bacteria to reproduce. It works against most bacteria by default, except in situations where a resistance has been developed. The correct use of antibiotics would require different antibiotics to be used in rotation, to prevent such an adaptation.
What about this contradicts what Buttershug said?
Antibiotics can work generally or specifically. The first and most famous antibiotic is Penicillin. Penicillin works by inhibiting the ability of bacteria to reproduce. It works against most bacteria by default, except in situations where a resistance has been developed. The correct use of antibiotics would require different antibiotics to be used in rotation, to prevent such an adaptation.
QUOTE
What about this contradicts what Buttershug said?
QUOTE
What about this contradicts what Buttershug said?
What, besides....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What about this contradicts what Buttershug said? |
What, besides....
One of the most contentious issues relating to disease depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which Europeans deliberately infected indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox. Cook asserts that there is no evidence that the Spanish attempted to infect the American natives.[14] The cattle introduced by the Spanish polluted the water reserves which Native Americans dug in the fields to accumulate rain water. In response, the Franciscans and Dominicans created public fountains and aqueducts to guarantee access to drinking water.[2] But when the Franciscans lost their privileges in 1572, many of these fountains were not guarded any more. Deliberate well poisoning may have happened.[2] Although no proof of such poisoning has been found, some historians believe the decrease of the population correlates with the end of religious orders' control of the water.[2]
and
QUOTE
Whatever Trent's intent, a number of recent scholars consider doubtful the evidence connecting his gift of blankets to the smallpox outbreak. These scholars believe that the disease was most likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[16] In other words, while some officers expressed the desire to use biological warfare, smallpox was so widespread and so easy to catch that there were other opportunities for Native Americans to be infected. Others attribute the smallpox outbreak to the common Indian practice of digging up recent European graves to retrieve the clothes of those buried, some of whom had died from smallpox.
Even though diseases were brought over and ran amuck through the native tribes, it was happenstance and even though that such would have certainly helped considerably in turning the tides of war to the favor of Europeans (as it was the leading cause of the decrease in their numbers), they didn't "beat" the natives with disease. The wars were fought by conventional means of that time but as for the means in which Europe has beaten the natives...Read everything under "Other causes of depopulation"
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 01:45 PM)
Even though diseases were brought over and ran amuck through the native tribes, it was happenstance and even though that such would have certainly helped considerably in turning the tides of war to the favor of Europeans (as it was the leading cause of the decrease in their numbers), they didn't "beat" the natives with disease. The wars were fought by conventional means of that time but as for the means in which Europe has beaten the natives...Read everything under "Other causes of depopulation"
I agree that the intentions weren't clear. I doubt that the Spanish even understood the concept of germs at that point in history. It was an inadvertent genocide.
I agree that the intentions weren't clear. I doubt that the Spanish even understood the concept of germs at that point in history. It was an inadvertent genocide.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 07:28 AM)
Getting worked up over a crazy serial killer is understandable
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers. There are other diseases out there that have taken bigger bites but the media is dragging this new (relatively) virus on and on. Anyone still remember the bird flu?
Making ourselves, as a species of this planet, dependant on drugs and vaccines only hurts us in the long run. There is a bit of truth in the end of War of the Worlds (the new one, I never saw the old one). The last thing we need to do is change that truth.
Some humans naturally become serial killers.
All human societies naturally go to war, using the best means to win at their disposal.
There is no distinction of natural vs unnatural. If it exists, it's natural, dumbass.
Not to mention the fact that a nuclear war is a highly unlikely event in comparison to a viral outbreak, and a serial killer will kill a minuscule number of people in comparison to a viral outbreak. (H1N1/09 has already killed more people than any known serial killer, dumbass.)
So explain to me why it's okay to get "worked up" over a possible death which is so unlikely as to be not worth considering, but it's not okay to get "worked up" over something which stands a very real chance of killing me or someone I love.
You really are stupid, you know that? I mean, anyone with a decent half-brain might have figured out what was wrong with your argument before they even made it...
You should be so lucky. You obviously don't have anything even resembling a clue when it comes to the history of the Americas.
I like the way you're trying to twist the meaning of the source you yourself linked to... Quoting only the portions about deliberate infection of the native populations really shows just how much of a bottom feeder you really are.
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
Glad I don't have you as a history teacher.
When the Spanish went up the Mississippi there were something like 80 tribes.
When the French later came down there were 8.
having 90% of the people you are fighting die from disease gives you quite an advantage.
And the earliest European settlers would not have survived the winter without aid from natives.
edit it wasn't intentional. And it wasn't just smallpox. Entire villages got influenza at once. Strange how having no one to get and prepare food can wipe out a village.
Europeans had big cities and had developed resistance to many diseases.
And not everything you learned or thought as kid is accurate.
edit 2:
Care to name the first war where more soldiers were killed by weapons than disease?
Even though diseases were brought over and ran amuck through the native tribes, it was happenstance and even though that such would have certainly helped considerably in turning the tides of war to the favor of Europeans (as it was the leading cause of the decrease in their numbers), they didn't "beat" the natives with disease. The wars were fought by conventional means of that time but as for the means in which Europe has beaten the natives...Read everything under "Other causes of depopulation"
Ok change "with" to "because of".
The point is that the natives were not beaten with advanced technology.
And as for "happenstance". A lot of history happend the way it did because of happenstance.
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Not to mention the fact that a nuclear war is a highly unlikely event in comparison to a viral outbreak, and a serial killer will kill a minuscule number of people in comparison to a viral outbreak. (H1N1/09 has already killed more people than any known serial killer, dumbass.)
You know for someone who is so quick to call me a dumbass sure doesn't get the concept of an example. You know what that makes you besides a dumbass? A hypocrite.
The point of the examples is to show that fearing over something of which humanity has no real control over is pointless. It's like fearing over growing old. After all, when you grow old you die. Humanity as a whole has control over the decisions and behavior that humanity makes and displays.
As for the example...A person isn't naturally a serial killer. They are shaped into becoming one by what influences their lives as they grow up/grow old. A person isn't born to shoot up their school, they do so because of the abuse that they endure from their peers and the lack of action of those who are supposed to be there.
We may have a violent nature but we are also self aware. We can also look ahead, think ahead and make predictions on what the outcomes will be. We can choose. If humanity as a whole were to be shaped into becoming something else than what it is today then wars being something a thing of the past is quite a possibility.
Yes even if they weren't once tree/vegetation. It formed naturally by means of a natural process (a bit redundant to say).
More specifically I said it was natural because it came to be through a natural process. As in something occuring in nature.
Ever hear the phrase "Made with all natural ingrediants"? Doesn't mean the product itself is natural.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural
Of course I'm talking of definition #1 most specifically.
Back on the topic of misplaced fear...
I bet you most people who get all up in arms about the swine flu have no problem with getting in their car and driving down the road...Now I only scratched the surface but I'm pretty sure that you have a more likely chance of dying in a car accident than you do from swine flu (assuming you caught it).
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers. There are other diseases out there that have taken bigger bites but the media is dragging this new (relatively) virus on and on. Anyone still remember the bird flu?
Making ourselves, as a species of this planet, dependant on drugs and vaccines only hurts us in the long run. There is a bit of truth in the end of War of the Worlds (the new one, I never saw the old one). The last thing we need to do is change that truth.
Some humans naturally become serial killers.
All human societies naturally go to war, using the best means to win at their disposal.
There is no distinction of natural vs unnatural. If it exists, it's natural, dumbass.
Not to mention the fact that a nuclear war is a highly unlikely event in comparison to a viral outbreak, and a serial killer will kill a minuscule number of people in comparison to a viral outbreak. (H1N1/09 has already killed more people than any known serial killer, dumbass.)
So explain to me why it's okay to get "worked up" over a possible death which is so unlikely as to be not worth considering, but it's not okay to get "worked up" over something which stands a very real chance of killing me or someone I love.
You really are stupid, you know that? I mean, anyone with a decent half-brain might have figured out what was wrong with your argument before they even made it...
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And Europeans beat the North American Natives with disease not advanced technology. Glad I don't have you as a history teacher. |
You should be so lucky. You obviously don't have anything even resembling a clue when it comes to the history of the Americas.
I like the way you're trying to twist the meaning of the source you yourself linked to... Quoting only the portions about deliberate infection of the native populations really shows just how much of a bottom feeder you really are.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 02:21 PM)
I remember hearing that if it were to return that it would wipe out most of the worlds population still....
Glad I don't have you as a history teacher.
When the Spanish went up the Mississippi there were something like 80 tribes.
When the French later came down there were 8.
having 90% of the people you are fighting die from disease gives you quite an advantage.
And the earliest European settlers would not have survived the winter without aid from natives.
edit it wasn't intentional. And it wasn't just smallpox. Entire villages got influenza at once. Strange how having no one to get and prepare food can wipe out a village.
Europeans had big cities and had developed resistance to many diseases.
And not everything you learned or thought as kid is accurate.
edit 2:
Care to name the first war where more soldiers were killed by weapons than disease?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 05:45 PM)
Even though diseases were brought over and ran amuck through the native tribes, it was happenstance and even though that such would have certainly helped considerably in turning the tides of war to the favor of Europeans (as it was the leading cause of the decrease in their numbers), they didn't "beat" the natives with disease. The wars were fought by conventional means of that time but as for the means in which Europe has beaten the natives...Read everything under "Other causes of depopulation"
Ok change "with" to "because of".
The point is that the natives were not beaten with advanced technology.
And as for "happenstance". A lot of history happend the way it did because of happenstance.
QUOTE
There is no distinction of natural vs unnatural. If it exists, it's natural, dumbass.
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no distinction of natural vs unnatural. If it exists, it's natural, dumbass. |
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Not to mention the fact that a nuclear war is a highly unlikely event in comparison to a viral outbreak, and a serial killer will kill a minuscule number of people in comparison to a viral outbreak. (H1N1/09 has already killed more people than any known serial killer, dumbass.)
You know for someone who is so quick to call me a dumbass sure doesn't get the concept of an example. You know what that makes you besides a dumbass? A hypocrite.
The point of the examples is to show that fearing over something of which humanity has no real control over is pointless. It's like fearing over growing old. After all, when you grow old you die. Humanity as a whole has control over the decisions and behavior that humanity makes and displays.
As for the example...A person isn't naturally a serial killer. They are shaped into becoming one by what influences their lives as they grow up/grow old. A person isn't born to shoot up their school, they do so because of the abuse that they endure from their peers and the lack of action of those who are supposed to be there.
We may have a violent nature but we are also self aware. We can also look ahead, think ahead and make predictions on what the outcomes will be. We can choose. If humanity as a whole were to be shaped into becoming something else than what it is today then wars being something a thing of the past is quite a possibility.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 09:39 AM)
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Is coal natural? Is oil natural? They were once trees/vegetation.
I think you are confusing "unnatural" with "unusual."
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Is coal natural? Is oil natural? They were once trees/vegetation.
I think you are confusing "unnatural" with "unusual."
QUOTE
Is coal natural? Is oil natural? They were once trees/vegetation.
Yes even if they weren't once tree/vegetation. It formed naturally by means of a natural process (a bit redundant to say).
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 09:51 AM)
Yes even if they weren't once tree/vegetation. It formed naturally by means of a natural process (a bit redundant to say).
You basically just said that oil is natural because it is natural. You need to use another qualifier. You're going to have to define natural as something more specific, e.g. not produced by human-induced chemical reactions (which would rule out beer and bread, among other things).
You basically just said that oil is natural because it is natural. You need to use another qualifier. You're going to have to define natural as something more specific, e.g. not produced by human-induced chemical reactions (which would rule out beer and bread, among other things).
QUOTE
You basically just said that oil is natural because it is natural.
More specifically I said it was natural because it came to be through a natural process. As in something occuring in nature.
Ever hear the phrase "Made with all natural ingrediants"? Doesn't mean the product itself is natural.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural
Of course I'm talking of definition #1 most specifically.
Back on the topic of misplaced fear...
I bet you most people who get all up in arms about the swine flu have no problem with getting in their car and driving down the road...Now I only scratched the surface but I'm pretty sure that you have a more likely chance of dying in a car accident than you do from swine flu (assuming you caught it).
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 08:39 AM)
There is a very fine distinction. For instance a computer is not natural. Or do you think they are given birth to, or grow on trees?
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Funny, you then go on to say the following...
" It formed naturally by means of a natural process (a bit redundant to say)."
So human imagination and ingenuity are not natural? The materials a computer is made out of do not have their origins in the natural world? The laws of physics which make it's operation possible are not natural? The flow of electrons within the circuits is not a natural process?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
You should actually try to familiarize yourself with the definition of a word before you argue about it's definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
So read those links and let's see if you can figure out on your own what's so wrong with your argument. I doubt you can, but still.
Dumbass.
An apple is natural. The pesticide used may be natural as well, might not be. The genetic manipulation done by people to make the apple the size of a basket ball and juicier than a watermelon is certainly not natural (I'm not saying that such a manipulation actually took place, it's just an example).
Funny, you then go on to say the following...
" It formed naturally by means of a natural process (a bit redundant to say)."
So human imagination and ingenuity are not natural? The materials a computer is made out of do not have their origins in the natural world? The laws of physics which make it's operation possible are not natural? The flow of electrons within the circuits is not a natural process?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
You should actually try to familiarize yourself with the definition of a word before you argue about it's definition.
QUOTE
You know for someone who is so quick to call me a dumbass sure doesn't get the concept of an example. You know what that makes you besides a dumbass? A hypocrite.
I know exactly what an example is. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that your example is actually an analogy or metaphor, which it isn't.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
So read those links and let's see if you can figure out on your own what's so wrong with your argument. I doubt you can, but still.
Dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You know for someone who is so quick to call me a dumbass sure doesn't get the concept of an example. You know what that makes you besides a dumbass? A hypocrite. |
I know exactly what an example is. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that your example is actually an analogy or metaphor, which it isn't.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
So read those links and let's see if you can figure out on your own what's so wrong with your argument. I doubt you can, but still.
Dumbass.
The point of the examples is to show that fearing over something of which humanity has no real control over is pointless. It's like fearing over growing old. After all, when you grow old you die. Humanity as a whole has control over the decisions and behavior that humanity makes and displays.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
So read those links and let's see if you can figure out on your own what's so wrong with your argument. I doubt you can, but still.
Dumbass.
The point of the examples is to show that fearing over something of which humanity has no real control over is pointless. It's like fearing over growing old. After all, when you grow old you die. Humanity as a whole has control over the decisions and behavior that humanity makes and displays.
Do you realize that this whole line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that there's nothing we can do about this virus?
WE HAVE A VACCINE, STOOPID!!!
I familiarized myself with it just fine. Unless you know of a tree that grows computers.
Our ability to think may be a natural thing but what does that have anything to do with this? That we can think of ways of manipulating what naturally exists? So what? Just because the materials can be found in nature doesn't mean the product can.
As for statisitcs, lets stick with the US alone...
Out of a population of about 304,059,724 people.....
There have been about 39,000 fatal car accidents per year.
There have been about 302 deaths by H1N1 in total.
Do the math...
WE HAVE A VACCINE, STOOPID!!!
QUOTE
As for the example...A person isn't naturally a serial killer. They are shaped into becoming one by what influences their lives as they grow up/grow old. A person isn't born to shoot up their school, they do so because of the abuse that they endure from their peers and the lack of action of those who are supposed to be there.
Every mainstream theory about psychopathy (which a serial killer inevitably is) involves a pre-existing disposition towards psychopathy, coupled with environmental factors. To sit here and suggest that only environmental factors (I suppose you think it's not natural for large kids to pick on weak kids, for parents to foster their own issues on their children, etc, etc, etc...) are the sole cause shows nothing but your own ignorance... Yet again.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the example...A person isn't naturally a serial killer. They are shaped into becoming one by what influences their lives as they grow up/grow old. A person isn't born to shoot up their school, they do so because of the abuse that they endure from their peers and the lack of action of those who are supposed to be there. |
Every mainstream theory about psychopathy (which a serial killer inevitably is) involves a pre-existing disposition towards psychopathy, coupled with environmental factors. To sit here and suggest that only environmental factors (I suppose you think it's not natural for large kids to pick on weak kids, for parents to foster their own issues on their children, etc, etc, etc...) are the sole cause shows nothing but your own ignorance... Yet again.
I bet you most people who get all up in arms about the swine flu have no problem with getting in their car and driving down the road...Now I only scratched the surface but I'm pretty sure that you have a more likely chance of dying in a car accident than you do from swine flu (assuming you caught it).
I bet you most people who get all up in arms about the swine flu have no problem with getting in their car and driving down the road...Now I only scratched the surface but I'm pretty sure that you have a more likely chance of dying in a car accident than you do from swine flu (assuming you caught it).
If comparing fatality rates of people who drive and people who have H1N1/09, then you're utterly ignorant, yet again. About 1% of people with the virus die as a result of it. Less than 1% of drivers will die in an auto accident. Out of approximately 200 million drivers in the US in 2009, only about 50,000 died in an auto accident. So, which is the bigger number? 1% or 0.025%?
But okay, let's assume you're not an ignorant retard, and that you're right. There's still a huge difference in the fact that there's no vaccine against automotive fatalities. That's right, numnuts! You can't simply get a shot to reduce your chances of dying in an auto accident to negligible levels. You can, however, get such a shot with regards to the virus.
But okay, let's assume you're not an ignorant retard, and that you're right. There's still a huge difference in the fact that there's no vaccine against automotive fatalities. That's right, numnuts! You can't simply get a shot to reduce your chances of dying in an auto accident to negligible levels. You can, however, get such a shot with regards to the virus.
QUOTE
You should actually try to familiarize yourself with the definition of a word before you argue about it's definition.
I familiarized myself with it just fine. Unless you know of a tree that grows computers.
Our ability to think may be a natural thing but what does that have anything to do with this? That we can think of ways of manipulating what naturally exists? So what? Just because the materials can be found in nature doesn't mean the product can.
As for statisitcs, lets stick with the US alone...
Out of a population of about 304,059,724 people.....
There have been about 39,000 fatal car accidents per year.
There have been about 302 deaths by H1N1 in total.
Do the math...
Please go and look up "The Spanish Flu."
Have fun!
Have fun!
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 12:53 PM)
I familiarized myself with it just fine. Unless you know of a tree that grows computers.
Please highlight where "grows on trees" is in that definition... I seem to have missed it. Oh wait, it's not there.... So you're making up your own definition to suit you, rather than using the actual definition. I suppose this explains why you seem to think I'm stupid. To you, stupid must be defined as "Smarter than me."
QUOTE
Our ability to think may be a natural thing but what does that have anything to do with this? That we can think of ways of manipulating what naturally exists? So what? Just because the materials can be found in nature doesn't mean the product can.
So computers don't exist? Wow.... I can find many many computers in nature. There's one in front of me right now.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Our ability to think may be a natural thing but what does that have anything to do with this? That we can think of ways of manipulating what naturally exists? So what? Just because the materials can be found in nature doesn't mean the product can. |
So computers don't exist? Wow.... I can find many many computers in nature. There's one in front of me right now.
As for statisitcs, lets stick with the US alone...
Out of a population of about 304,059,724 people.....
There have been about 39,000 fatal car accidents per year.
There have been about 302 deaths by H1N1 in total.
Do the math...
As for statisitcs, lets stick with the US alone...
Out of a population of about 304,059,724 people.....
There have been about 39,000 fatal car accidents per year.
There have been about 302 deaths by H1N1 in total.
Do the math...
You know even less about statistics than you do about English, apparently.
By your logic, I should worry about being thrown overboard from a crab fishing vessel. I mean, the fact that I'm not a crab fisherman has nothing to do with my likelihood of dying that way....
To be perfectly honest, you could increase the number of people for whom it is possible to die in a traffic accident to almost 300 million, because almost everyone alive in the US will ride in a vehicle at least once this year. Even if they don't, they'll likely walk down a road where there could be struck by a vehicle. So to be more specific, the chance a person who is exposed to the possibility of dying in a car accident will die is about 0.0167%. The chance that a person who is exposed to the H1N1/09 virus will die is about 1%. That means that this virus is 60 times more lethal than driving.
But wait, there's more... How many times a year does the average person ride in or drive a car? If I take myself as average, that's something like 700 trips. So if you take that into consideration, there are 210,000,000,000 chances for someone in the US to die in an auto accident this year. Only about 50,000 of them will actually do so. So the real likelihood of dying in a car accident is about 0.0000238%.
The virus is much simpler... You get it once, then you're immune if you survive. So the odds of dying of that remain the same, at 1%. So using conservative estimates, you're 42,000 times more likely to die of the virus if exposed to it than you are to die of an auto accident if exposed to it.
How did you get so stupid? Did it take a lot of work, or were you just born that way?
By your logic, I should worry about being thrown overboard from a crab fishing vessel. I mean, the fact that I'm not a crab fisherman has nothing to do with my likelihood of dying that way....
To be perfectly honest, you could increase the number of people for whom it is possible to die in a traffic accident to almost 300 million, because almost everyone alive in the US will ride in a vehicle at least once this year. Even if they don't, they'll likely walk down a road where there could be struck by a vehicle. So to be more specific, the chance a person who is exposed to the possibility of dying in a car accident will die is about 0.0167%. The chance that a person who is exposed to the H1N1/09 virus will die is about 1%. That means that this virus is 60 times more lethal than driving.
But wait, there's more... How many times a year does the average person ride in or drive a car? If I take myself as average, that's something like 700 trips. So if you take that into consideration, there are 210,000,000,000 chances for someone in the US to die in an auto accident this year. Only about 50,000 of them will actually do so. So the real likelihood of dying in a car accident is about 0.0000238%.
The virus is much simpler... You get it once, then you're immune if you survive. So the odds of dying of that remain the same, at 1%. So using conservative estimates, you're 42,000 times more likely to die of the virus if exposed to it than you are to die of an auto accident if exposed to it.
How did you get so stupid? Did it take a lot of work, or were you just born that way?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 05:53 PM)
There have been about 302 deaths by H1N1 in total.
And that's over 3000 in the Americas alone.
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_16/en/index.html
Now, in the US, there have been about 300 confirmed influenza deaths, but why would you need laboratory confirmation in the middle of an epidemic. If it looks like pneumonia/flu, that is the current default diagnosis because it likely is flu-related. The correct figure is at least in the thousands.
And that's over 3000 in the Americas alone.
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_16/en/index.html
Now, in the US, there have been about 300 confirmed influenza deaths, but why would you need laboratory confirmation in the middle of an epidemic. If it looks like pneumonia/flu, that is the current default diagnosis because it likely is flu-related. The correct figure is at least in the thousands.
From August 30 – October 10, 2009, 4,958 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated hospitalizations, 292 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated deaths ... and 2,029 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based deaths, were reported to CDC.
Please say your joking...
Oh, you're not.
I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying...
Please say your joking...
Oh, you're not.
I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying...
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
They even gave an example. Another would be a diamond. There are natural diamonds, then there are artificial diamonds.
Let's look at definition 4.(a) which also applies here since we are talking of something that is biological.
With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially".
As for the virus. As far as I know that has not been produced or changed artificially.
With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially".
As for the virus. As far as I know that has not been produced or changed artificially.
By your logic, I should worry about being thrown overboard from a crab fishing vessel. I mean, the fact that I'm not a crab fisherman has nothing to do with my likelihood of dying that way....
You can not go on a crab fishing boat by choice but unless you plan on living in a bubble the rest of your natural life, you can't choose not to expose yourself to illness and unless you plan on living somewhere without cars you can't choose not to get in an accident with one (even if you are not in the vehicle doesn't mean you can't be hit by one). You probably have been exposed to H1N1 already. You still have to beat the odds of catching it first before you can beat the odds of dying from it.
http://h1n1.flu-virus.org/H1N1-US-deaths.php
39140 Confirmed cases
302 Deaths
.77% chance of dying once determine for sure you are infected.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
42,636 Deaths
.66% chance of dying once it's determined for sure you will be in one.
So there is a .11% greater chance of dying from the infection you already have than it is from the accident you were already in. However to the general public exposed to both illness and vehicles, you have a greater chance of dying from a car accident. There is still a grain of salt there because of questions unanswered like...
Confirmed cases and reported accidents, what about those not confirmed/reported and those that have come and gone unnoticed by anyone other than those involved (with exception to the infected who may pass it off as some other illness)?
Does the car crash deaths include those not in a vehicle at the time? Someone crossing the street and got hit?
I was confusing something, thnx for pointing that out for me. I think I was confusing unnatural with artificial.
QUOTE
As of 11 October 2009, worldwide there have been ... over 4735 deaths reported to WHO.
And that's over 3000 in the Americas alone.
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_16/en/index.html
Now, in the US, there have been about 300 confirmed influenza deaths, but why would you need laboratory confirmation in the middle of an epidemic. If it looks like pneumonia/flu, that is the current default diagnosis because it likely is flu-related. The correct figure is at least in the thousands.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As of 11 October 2009, worldwide there have been ... over 4735 deaths reported to WHO. |
And that's over 3000 in the Americas alone.
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_16/en/index.html
Now, in the US, there have been about 300 confirmed influenza deaths, but why would you need laboratory confirmation in the middle of an epidemic. If it looks like pneumonia/flu, that is the current default diagnosis because it likely is flu-related. The correct figure is at least in the thousands.
From August 30 – October 10, 2009, 4,958 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated hospitalizations, 292 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated deaths ... and 2,029 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based deaths, were reported to CDC.
QUOTE
Please highlight where "grows on trees" is in that definition... I seem to have missed it. Oh wait, it's not there...
Please say your joking...
Oh, you're not.
I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please highlight where "grows on trees" is in that definition... I seem to have missed it. Oh wait, it's not there... |
Please say your joking...
Oh, you're not.
I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying...
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
They even gave an example. Another would be a diamond. There are natural diamonds, then there are artificial diamonds.
Let's look at definition 4.(a) which also applies here since we are talking of something that is biological.
QUOTE
Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially".
As for the virus. As far as I know that has not been produced or changed artificially.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex. |
With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially".
As for the virus. As far as I know that has not been produced or changed artificially.
By your logic, I should worry about being thrown overboard from a crab fishing vessel. I mean, the fact that I'm not a crab fisherman has nothing to do with my likelihood of dying that way....
You can not go on a crab fishing boat by choice but unless you plan on living in a bubble the rest of your natural life, you can't choose not to expose yourself to illness and unless you plan on living somewhere without cars you can't choose not to get in an accident with one (even if you are not in the vehicle doesn't mean you can't be hit by one). You probably have been exposed to H1N1 already. You still have to beat the odds of catching it first before you can beat the odds of dying from it.
http://h1n1.flu-virus.org/H1N1-US-deaths.php
39140 Confirmed cases
302 Deaths
.77% chance of dying once determine for sure you are infected.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
42,636 Deaths
.66% chance of dying once it's determined for sure you will be in one.
So there is a .11% greater chance of dying from the infection you already have than it is from the accident you were already in. However to the general public exposed to both illness and vehicles, you have a greater chance of dying from a car accident. There is still a grain of salt there because of questions unanswered like...
Confirmed cases and reported accidents, what about those not confirmed/reported and those that have come and gone unnoticed by anyone other than those involved (with exception to the infected who may pass it off as some other illness)?
Does the car crash deaths include those not in a vehicle at the time? Someone crossing the street and got hit?
QUOTE
I think you are confusing "unnatural" with "unusual."
I was confusing something, thnx for pointing that out for me. I think I was confusing unnatural with artificial.
A better way to figure mortality is chance of dying from a cause. As only the most delusional among use have no expectation of eventual death.
According to the CDC, in the last reported week (ending October 10th) flu and pneumonia caused 6.7% of all deaths.
Comparing that to 2006 figures, that means in that week, flu and pneumonia was the third leading cause of death in the US, just behind heart disease and malignant neoplasms.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm
According to the CDC, in the last reported week (ending October 10th) flu and pneumonia caused 6.7% of all deaths.
Comparing that to 2006 figures, that means in that week, flu and pneumonia was the third leading cause of death in the US, just behind heart disease and malignant neoplasms.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 02:26 PM)
Please say your joking...
Yet you ignore any definition which doesn't fit your own claims, and you ignore the fact that the distinction between natural and unnatural is tentative, at best.
And for all of that, you have yet to give anything even resembling evidence that psychopathy and war are unnatural. Furthermore, you yourself defined a computer as unnatural based on the fact that they don't grow on trees. By that logic, neither pearls nor diamonds are natural, as neither grows on trees.
What you're doing is squirming. You imply that we should not react to this flu pandemic because it's a natural occurrence, as if being natural somehow made it desirable. You then contrast this with war and psychopathy, as if neither were natural. Yet you have no evidence that war and psychopathy are not natural. Then, you go on to dispute my definition of the word, despite it's validity. You have also implied that there is nothing we can do about this virus, which is utterly false.
In short, you squirm and wiggle, rather than actually make a coherent argument. You demonstrate your own propensity for dishonesty in the face of both evidence and rational argument.
Yet you ignore any definition which doesn't fit your own claims, and you ignore the fact that the distinction between natural and unnatural is tentative, at best.
And for all of that, you have yet to give anything even resembling evidence that psychopathy and war are unnatural. Furthermore, you yourself defined a computer as unnatural based on the fact that they don't grow on trees. By that logic, neither pearls nor diamonds are natural, as neither grows on trees.
What you're doing is squirming. You imply that we should not react to this flu pandemic because it's a natural occurrence, as if being natural somehow made it desirable. You then contrast this with war and psychopathy, as if neither were natural. Yet you have no evidence that war and psychopathy are not natural. Then, you go on to dispute my definition of the word, despite it's validity. You have also implied that there is nothing we can do about this virus, which is utterly false.
In short, you squirm and wiggle, rather than actually make a coherent argument. You demonstrate your own propensity for dishonesty in the face of both evidence and rational argument.
QUOTE
I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying...
How about this:QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I already pointed out the first definition which defined perfectly what I was saying... |
How about this:
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music.
a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards.
a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music.
a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards.
a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
I've bolded every definition (and a portion of one) that matches exactly the manner in which I've used the word. Now, find for me the definition that excludes computers because they don't grow on trees.
QUOTE
With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially".
Which makes it bad? You're using a computer, which you've already claimed was unnatural. Stop using it, because it's bad to do unnatural things, by your own logic. In fact, stop wearing clothes, stop eating food you haven't hunted or gathered (and you can't use any tools to do this), stop living in a house, stop using condoms or any other form of birth control, stop bathing... QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| With regards to the vaccine, we are "producing or changing" our immunity "artificially". |
Which makes it bad? You're using a computer, which you've already claimed was unnatural. Stop using it, because it's bad to do unnatural things, by your own logic. In fact, stop wearing clothes, stop eating food you haven't hunted or gathered (and you can't use any tools to do this), stop living in a house, stop using condoms or any other form of birth control, stop bathing...
You can not go on a crab fishing boat by choice but unless you plan on living in a bubble the rest of your natural life, you can't choose not to expose yourself to illness and unless you plan on living somewhere without cars you can't choose not to get in an accident with one (even if you are not in the vehicle doesn't mean you can't be hit by one). You probably have been exposed to H1N1 already. You still have to beat the odds of catching it first before you can beat the odds of dying from it.
You can not go on a crab fishing boat by choice but unless you plan on living in a bubble the rest of your natural life, you can't choose not to expose yourself to illness and unless you plan on living somewhere without cars you can't choose not to get in an accident with one (even if you are not in the vehicle doesn't mean you can't be hit by one). You probably have been exposed to H1N1 already. You still have to beat the odds of catching it first before you can beat the odds of dying from it.
You're leaving something out: I can (have already, thank you very much) get the vaccine. There is an easy, cheap, and effective manner of preventing your death due to this virus.
The best analogy between them is the one I provided.
QUOTE
http://h1n1.flu-virus.org/H1N1-US-deaths.php
39140 Confirmed cases
302 Deaths
.77% chance of dying once determine for sure you are infected.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
42,636 Deaths
.66% chance of dying once it's determined for sure you will be in one.
You're assuming that getting the virus and getting in an accident are analogous. They are not. The better analogy would be between getting the virus and being hospitalized, and being in an accident. That still makes the virus more than 7 times more dangerous. Plus you're ignoring the fact that only people exposed to the virus can get it, and not everyone exposed to it will get it, even among populations which lack an existing immunity.39140 Confirmed cases
302 Deaths
.77% chance of dying once determine for sure you are infected.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
42,636 Deaths
.66% chance of dying once it's determined for sure you will be in one.
The best analogy between them is the one I provided.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http://h1n1.flu-virus.org/H1N1-US-deaths.php 39140 Confirmed cases 302 Deaths .77% chance of dying once determine for sure you are infected. http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html 6,420,000 Car accidents ('05) 42,636 Deaths .66% chance of dying once it's determined for sure you will be in one. |
You're assuming that getting the virus and getting in an accident are analogous. They are not. The better analogy would be between getting the virus and being hospitalized, and being in an accident. That still makes the virus more than 7 times more dangerous. Plus you're ignoring the fact that only people exposed to the virus can get it, and not everyone exposed to it will get it, even among populations which lack an existing immunity.
The best analogy between them is the one I provided.
So there is a .11% greater chance of dying from the infection you already have than it is from the accident you were already in. However to the general public exposed to both illness and vehicles, you have a greater chance of dying from a car accident. There is still a grain of salt there because of questions unanswered like...
The best analogy between them is the one I provided.
So there is a .11% greater chance of dying from the infection you already have than it is from the accident you were already in. However to the general public exposed to both illness and vehicles, you have a greater chance of dying from a car accident. There is still a grain of salt there because of questions unanswered like...
You just posted information which contradicts this claim, you stupid retard...
[sarcasm]Cause there is nothing coherent in punching the numbers and showing straight up that you have a greater chance in getting in an accident then coming down with H1N1 and because of this you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Cause there is nothing coherent in punching the numbers and showing straight up that you have a greater chance in getting in an accident then coming down with H1N1 and because of this you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm]
I've bolded every definition (and a portion of one) that matches exactly the manner in which I've used the word.
Yes a word has more than one meaning. A word like "natural" can be used in a variety of ways. One that is not a "stupid retard" (as you put it) unlike yourself would be able to tell by which definition the word is being used.
Gladly
Gladly
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music.
a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards.
a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
Growing on a tree is an example of a method in which something is formed by nature. You are clearly to much of a "stupid retard" to see that.
They even give an example of what they mean for something that exists in nature. "A natural bridge". As opposed to what? A man made bridge, duh. I don't know what fantasy land you live in but I have not seen a computer (PC or Laptop) yet that wasn't man made.
You having bold the part (existing in) of this particular meaning and saying it applies to something man made is a perfect example of your inability to grasp what is being said.
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original).
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original).
They are not. The better analogy would be between getting the virus and being hospitalized, and being in an accident.
Alright. Would it be safe to assume that a confirmed case of H1N1 is one that resulted in having been seen by a doctor?
Population of the US according to google.
304,059,724 people
Number of reported car accidents
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
Odds of being in a car accident.
1 in 47.36 which is a 2.11% chance
Number of people having to see a doctor due to H1N1
39140 people
Odds of having to see a doctor due to H1N1
1 in 7768.52 which is a .013% chance
A perfect example of you talking out your *** since the numbers show otherwise.
It's not wiggling you see, it's me running circles....around you.
QUOTE
Confirmed cases and reported accidents, what about those not confirmed/reported and those that have come and gone unnoticed by anyone other than those involved (with exception to the infected who may pass it off as some other illness)?
That would only raise the mortality rate of this virus.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Confirmed cases and reported accidents, what about those not confirmed/reported and those that have come and gone unnoticed by anyone other than those involved (with exception to the infected who may pass it off as some other illness)? |
That would only raise the mortality rate of this virus.
Does the car crash deaths include those not in a vehicle at the time? Someone crossing the street and got hit?
Does the car crash deaths include those not in a vehicle at the time? Someone crossing the street and got hit?
In every standard I've ever come across, it is.
QUOTE
In short, you squirm and wiggle, rather than actually make a coherent argument. You demonstrate your own propensity for dishonesty in the face of both evidence and rational argument.
[sarcasm]Cause there is nothing coherent in punching the numbers and showing straight up that you have a greater chance in getting in an accident then coming down with H1N1 and because of this you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In short, you squirm and wiggle, rather than actually make a coherent argument. You demonstrate your own propensity for dishonesty in the face of both evidence and rational argument. |
[sarcasm]Cause there is nothing coherent in punching the numbers and showing straight up that you have a greater chance in getting in an accident then coming down with H1N1 and because of this you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm]
I've bolded every definition (and a portion of one) that matches exactly the manner in which I've used the word.
Yes a word has more than one meaning. A word like "natural" can be used in a variety of ways. One that is not a "stupid retard" (as you put it) unlike yourself would be able to tell by which definition the word is being used.
QUOTE
Now, find for me the definition that excludes computers because they don't grow on trees.
Gladly
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, find for me the definition that excludes computers because they don't grow on trees. |
Gladly
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music.
a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards.
a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
Growing on a tree is an example of a method in which something is formed by nature. You are clearly to much of a "stupid retard" to see that.
They even give an example of what they mean for something that exists in nature. "A natural bridge". As opposed to what? A man made bridge, duh. I don't know what fantasy land you live in but I have not seen a computer (PC or Laptop) yet that wasn't man made.
You having bold the part (existing in) of this particular meaning and saying it applies to something man made is a perfect example of your inability to grasp what is being said.
QUOTE
Which makes it bad? You're using a computer, which you've already claimed was unnatural. Stop using it, because it's bad to do unnatural things, by your own logic.
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which makes it bad? You're using a computer, which you've already claimed was unnatural. Stop using it, because it's bad to do unnatural things, by your own logic. |
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original).
They are not. The better analogy would be between getting the virus and being hospitalized, and being in an accident.
Alright. Would it be safe to assume that a confirmed case of H1N1 is one that resulted in having been seen by a doctor?
Population of the US according to google.
304,059,724 people
Number of reported car accidents
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
Odds of being in a car accident.
1 in 47.36 which is a 2.11% chance
Number of people having to see a doctor due to H1N1
39140 people
Odds of having to see a doctor due to H1N1
1 in 7768.52 which is a .013% chance
QUOTE
That still makes the virus more than 7 times more dangerous
A perfect example of you talking out your *** since the numbers show otherwise.
It's not wiggling you see, it's me running circles....around you.
SPANISH. FLU.
LOOK IT UP.
LOOK IT UP.
What about it?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 20 2009, 09:51 AM)
[sarcasm]Cause there is nothing coherent in punching the numbers and showing straight up that you have a greater chance in getting in an accident then coming down with H1N1 and because of this you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident.
Only you didn't punch the numbers... You manipulated them to try to make your case, and still ended up showing a higher likelihood of dying from the virus than from a car accident.
Only you didn't punch the numbers... You manipulated them to try to make your case, and still ended up showing a higher likelihood of dying from the virus than from a car accident.
QUOTE
There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm]
Word Salad, meaningless gibberish, nonsense, blathering.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is also nothing coherent in having shown that there is only a .11% better chance of someone dying from H1N1 (after they already bet the odds and caught it) then dying from a car crash (once they know they are going to be in one for sure) and that this .11% increase in chance is not nearly enough to offset the higher chance of getting in an accident which is why you are more likely to die from a car accident.[/sarcasm] |
Word Salad, meaningless gibberish, nonsense, blathering.
Yes a word has more than one meaning. A word like "natural" can be used in a variety of ways. One that is not a "stupid retard" (as you put it) unlike yourself would be able to tell by which definition the word is being used.
Yes a word has more than one meaning. A word like "natural" can be used in a variety of ways. One that is not a "stupid retard" (as you put it) unlike yourself would be able to tell by which definition the word is being used.
That still doesn't put "grows on trees" in the definition.
For that matter, are humans not a part of nature? Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature? Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature?
Perhaps all computers are built in the spiritual realm, is that it? God has a magic factory full of angel workers who toil 26 hours a day, 763 days a year on the production of computers for the use of us humans?
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
QUOTE
Growing on a tree is an example of a method in which something is formed by nature. You are clearly to much of a "stupid retard" to see that.
You didn't offer it as an example. You used it as a necessary feature. Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you. You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning. Again, you're just squirming. For that matter, are humans not a part of nature? Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature? Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature?
Perhaps all computers are built in the spiritual realm, is that it? God has a magic factory full of angel workers who toil 26 hours a day, 763 days a year on the production of computers for the use of us humans?
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Growing on a tree is an example of a method in which something is formed by nature. You are clearly to much of a "stupid retard" to see that. |
You didn't offer it as an example. You used it as a necessary feature. Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you. You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning. Again, you're just squirming.
For that matter, are humans not a part of nature? Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature? Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature?
Perhaps all computers are built in the spiritual realm, is that it? God has a magic factory full of angel workers who toil 26 hours a day, 763 days a year on the production of computers for the use of us humans?
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
They even give an example of what they mean for something that exists in nature. "A natural bridge". As opposed to what? A man made bridge, duh. I don't know what fantasy land you live in but I have not seen a computer (PC or Laptop) yet that wasn't man made.
For that matter, are humans not a part of nature? Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature? Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature?
Perhaps all computers are built in the spiritual realm, is that it? God has a magic factory full of angel workers who toil 26 hours a day, 763 days a year on the production of computers for the use of us humans?
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
They even give an example of what they mean for something that exists in nature. "A natural bridge". As opposed to what? A man made bridge, duh. I don't know what fantasy land you live in but I have not seen a computer (PC or Laptop) yet that wasn't man made.
The opposing option was the word "artificial." A man-made bridge is hardly artificial.
Again, do you work hard to be this stupid or does it come naturally to you?
QUOTE
You having bold the part (existing in) of this particular meaning and saying it applies to something man made is a perfect example of your inability to grasp what is being said.
Ahhh... So you don't understand the meaning of the word "or" I see.Again, do you work hard to be this stupid or does it come naturally to you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You having bold the part (existing in) of this particular meaning and saying it applies to something man made is a perfect example of your inability to grasp what is being said. |
Ahhh... So you don't understand the meaning of the word "or" I see.
Again, do you work hard to be this stupid or does it come naturally to you?
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Again, do you work hard to be this stupid or does it come naturally to you?
Another fine example as I have never said that it is bad to do things that are unnatural. I simply stated that there is a difference between something that is natural and unnatural/artificial. That not everything is natural (depends entirely on the context in which the word is being used).
Stating something and implying it work out to be the same thing, in the end, dumbass. You said
"Getting worked up over a crazy serial killer is understandable
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless."
If you don't have the integrity to admit what you clearly implied by that statement, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you whatsoever.
You're an idiot. Whether an immunity is developed by our own immune systems or introduced through artificial means (which vaccines don't do, by the way, they use our bodies own immune responses to engender the immunity) is irrelevant. At the end of the day, we're still immune. I didn't respond to this because it's an even stupider position than anything else you've said in this thread.
Manipulated them? And how exactly did I do that. I even provided links to the sites in a previous post. I took the time to add up, on that chart, all the numbers for deaths and all the numbers for confirmed cases just to make sure that I had the correct amount according to that site. And yes I made sure that it was the 'up till October' count. I then googled the population of the US (stating so in a previous post).
Manipulated them? And how exactly did I do that. I even provided links to the sites in a previous post. I took the time to add up, on that chart, all the numbers for deaths and all the numbers for confirmed cases just to make sure that I had the correct amount according to that site. And yes I made sure that it was the 'up till October' count. I then googled the population of the US (stating so in a previous post).
Word Salad, meaningless gibberish, nonsense, blathering.
Considering the last part of your post, that is a mighty fine example of being a total hypocrite. Ignoring facts yourself just to turn around and accuse me of it.
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
You didn't offer it as an example. You used it as a necessary feature. Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you. You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning
I certainly did offer it as an example. What, do I have to spell it out that it is one every time I use one?
they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature.
they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature.
You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning
Already demonstrated "grows on trees" to be an example of definition #1. You have only demonstrated that you don't know an example when you see one. You should really pay more attention in English class.
Yes we are.
Yes we are.
Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature?
Our ability to think and move is natural. So yes.
Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature.
Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature.
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
HELL NO!!!
I feel very inclined to post a link to this statement to other forums. Just for sake of sharing the humor.
Something that is Man made (despite humans being a part of nature and despite the materials being those that can be found in nature) is certainly not something that is formed by nature.
A sand bar is something that is formed by nature. A sand castle is not.
A cave that has formed by erosion is something that formed by nature. A mine is not.
A diamond that comes from that mine is something that formed by nature. A diamond that comes from a belt press is not.
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2.
Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3.
Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
It doesn't get any more clear than definition 1. a. and I don't see any of the other definitions make true to your statement so unlike the word natural, it's not a matter of in what context the word was used. It's a flat out incorrect statement and a perfect example of just how much of a dumb *** you really are.
Ah yes, as long as it doesn't affect you. Never mind your children (last thing the world needs is for you to spawn) or your children's children or your children's children's children, etc. They can have their immunities weaker because the natural process of evolution has been artificially tampered with, as long as you are fine.
"Getting worked up over a crazy serial killer is understandable
Getting worked up over the possibility of a nuclear war (Cold War then, North Korea now) is understandable
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless."
If you don't have the integrity to admit what you clearly implied by that statement, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you whatsoever.
QUOTE
Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original).
Yes, because, as we all know, science fiction movies are the best way to learn about epidemiology and microbiology. All those PhD scientists out there learned all their stuff from watching sci-fi movies....You're an idiot. Whether an immunity is developed by our own immune systems or introduced through artificial means (which vaccines don't do, by the way, they use our bodies own immune responses to engender the immunity) is irrelevant. At the end of the day, we're still immune. I didn't respond to this because it's an even stupider position than anything else you've said in this thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then I simply stated that we (humanity) is only hurting ourselves in the long run by making ourselves dependent on drugs. Have you ever seen the movie, War of the Worlds? The new one that is (I never saw the original). |
Yes, because, as we all know, science fiction movies are the best way to learn about epidemiology and microbiology. All those PhD scientists out there learned all their stuff from watching sci-fi movies....
You're an idiot. Whether an immunity is developed by our own immune systems or introduced through artificial means (which vaccines don't do, by the way, they use our bodies own immune responses to engender the immunity) is irrelevant. At the end of the day, we're still immune. I didn't respond to this because it's an even stupider position than anything else you've said in this thread.
Alright. Would it be safe to assume that a confirmed case of H1N1 is one that resulted in having been seen by a doctor?
Population of the US according to google.
304,059,724 people
Number of reported car accidents
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
Odds of being in a car accident.
1 in 47.36 which is a 2.11% chance
Number of people having to see a doctor due to H1N1
39140 people
Odds of having to see a doctor due to H1N1
1 in 7768.52 which is a .013% chance
A perfect example of you talking out your *** since the numbers show otherwise.
It's not wiggling you see, it's me running circles....around you.
You're an idiot. Whether an immunity is developed by our own immune systems or introduced through artificial means (which vaccines don't do, by the way, they use our bodies own immune responses to engender the immunity) is irrelevant. At the end of the day, we're still immune. I didn't respond to this because it's an even stupider position than anything else you've said in this thread.
Alright. Would it be safe to assume that a confirmed case of H1N1 is one that resulted in having been seen by a doctor?
Population of the US according to google.
304,059,724 people
Number of reported car accidents
6,420,000 Car accidents ('05)
Odds of being in a car accident.
1 in 47.36 which is a 2.11% chance
Number of people having to see a doctor due to H1N1
39140 people
Odds of having to see a doctor due to H1N1
1 in 7768.52 which is a .013% chance
A perfect example of you talking out your *** since the numbers show otherwise.
It's not wiggling you see, it's me running circles....around you.
See, you're still cooking the numbers. You're ignoring the blatantly obvious FACT that everyone in the US is exposed to the possibility of a fatal auto accident, while relatively few people are exposed to the possibility of death due to the virus. There's a lot more people driving around in vehicles than there are getting coughed on by infected people. No matter how much you sit there and ignore this FACT, it will remain a FACT and it will make any 'number crunching' you do an exercise in numerology unless and until you decide to take it into consideration.
QUOTE
Only you didn't punch the numbers... You manipulated them to try to make your case, and still ended up showing a higher likelihood of dying from the virus than from a car accident.
Manipulated them? And how exactly did I do that. I even provided links to the sites in a previous post. I took the time to add up, on that chart, all the numbers for deaths and all the numbers for confirmed cases just to make sure that I had the correct amount according to that site. And yes I made sure that it was the 'up till October' count. I then googled the population of the US (stating so in a previous post).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only you didn't punch the numbers... You manipulated them to try to make your case, and still ended up showing a higher likelihood of dying from the virus than from a car accident. |
Manipulated them? And how exactly did I do that. I even provided links to the sites in a previous post. I took the time to add up, on that chart, all the numbers for deaths and all the numbers for confirmed cases just to make sure that I had the correct amount according to that site. And yes I made sure that it was the 'up till October' count. I then googled the population of the US (stating so in a previous post).
Word Salad, meaningless gibberish, nonsense, blathering.
Considering the last part of your post, that is a mighty fine example of being a total hypocrite. Ignoring facts yourself just to turn around and accuse me of it.
QUOTE
That still doesn't put "grows on trees" in the definition.
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That still doesn't put "grows on trees" in the definition. |
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
You didn't offer it as an example. You used it as a necessary feature. Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you. You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning
I certainly did offer it as an example. What, do I have to spell it out that it is one every time I use one?
QUOTE
Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you.
they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Computers are not natural because they don't grow on trees according to you. |
they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature.
You can't find "grows on trees" anywhere in that definition, so you resort to a different meaning
Already demonstrated "grows on trees" to be an example of definition #1. You have only demonstrated that you don't know an example when you see one. You should really pay more attention in English class.
QUOTE
For that matter, are humans not a part of nature?
Yes we are.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For that matter, are humans not a part of nature? |
Yes we are.
Isn't our creativity, intelligence and ingenuity a part of nature?
Our ability to think and move is natural. So yes.
QUOTE
Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature?
Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are the metal, stone, and chemicals used to build a computer factory and the tools therein not a part of nature? |
Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature.
If not, then computers can easily be said to be formed by nature.
HELL NO!!!
I feel very inclined to post a link to this statement to other forums. Just for sake of sharing the humor.
Something that is Man made (despite humans being a part of nature and despite the materials being those that can be found in nature) is certainly not something that is formed by nature.
A sand bar is something that is formed by nature. A sand castle is not.
A cave that has formed by erosion is something that formed by nature. A mine is not.
A diamond that comes from that mine is something that formed by nature. A diamond that comes from a belt press is not.
QUOTE
The opposing option was the word "artificial." A man-made bridge is hardly artificial.
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The opposing option was the word "artificial." A man-made bridge is hardly artificial. |
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2.
Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3.
Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
It doesn't get any more clear than definition 1. a. and I don't see any of the other definitions make true to your statement so unlike the word natural, it's not a matter of in what context the word was used. It's a flat out incorrect statement and a perfect example of just how much of a dumb *** you really are.
QUOTE
At the end of the day, we're still immune
Ah yes, as long as it doesn't affect you. Never mind your children (last thing the world needs is for you to spawn) or your children's children or your children's children's children, etc. They can have their immunities weaker because the natural process of evolution has been artificially tampered with, as long as you are fine.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 20 2009, 01:44 PM)
Manipulated them? And how exactly did I do that. I even provided links to the sites in a previous post. I took the time to add up, on that chart, all the numbers for deaths and all the numbers for confirmed cases just to make sure that I had the correct amount according to that site. And yes I made sure that it was the 'up till October' count. I then googled the population of the US (stating so in a previous post).
Read the last part of my post. The part with the word FACT appearing in it several times.
Read the last part of my post. The part with the word FACT appearing in it several times.
QUOTE
Considering the last part of your post, that is a mighty fine example of being a total hypocrite. Ignoring facts yourself just to turn around and accuse me of it.
The portion I responded to contained no facts, only your interpretation of them, dumbass.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Considering the last part of your post, that is a mighty fine example of being a total hypocrite. Ignoring facts yourself just to turn around and accuse me of it. |
The portion I responded to contained no facts, only your interpretation of them, dumbass.
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
I certainly did offer it as an example. What, do I have to spell it out that it is one every time I use one?
The response to this is in the quote that followed however you clearly show just how ignorant you are to these simple things. Perhaps they are too complex to your much too simple mind.
I certainly did offer it as an example. What, do I have to spell it out that it is one every time I use one?
Liar, liar, pants on fire. 
Sound familiar? "Unless you know of a tree that grows computers."
Sound familiar? "Unless you know of a tree that grows computers."
QUOTE
they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature.
Yet they exist in nature... Have you familiarized yourself with the meaning of the word "or" yet?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| they're not natural because they are man made and not made by nature. |
Yet they exist in nature... Have you familiarized yourself with the meaning of the word "or" yet?
Already demonstrated "grows on trees" to be an example of definition #1. You have only demonstrated that you don't know an example when you see one. You should really pay more attention in English class.
Already demonstrated "grows on trees" to be an example of definition #1. You have only demonstrated that you don't know an example when you see one. You should really pay more attention in English class.
Example example example.... Are you really so dense? You claimed computers aren't natural because they don't grow on trees. That's not an example, that's a necessary condition.
QUOTE
Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature.
Then please explain the manner in which it is formed by the supernatural.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe. However just because something is made up of "all natural ingredients" doesn't make the product natural. After all you can create beer from all natural ingredients but beer is purely man made. We make it, (now pay particular attention here) it doesn't already exist in nature nor is it formed by nature. |
Then please explain the manner in which it is formed by the supernatural.
HELL NO!!!
I feel very inclined to post a link to this statement to other forums. Just for sake of sharing the humor.
HELL NO!!!
I feel very inclined to post a link to this statement to other forums. Just for sake of sharing the humor.
Why is it that idiots always feel the need to claim that other idiots laugh at smart people?
QUOTE
Something that is Man made (despite humans being a part of nature and despite the materials being those that can be found in nature) is certainly not something that is formed by nature.
So humans are supernatural, then?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Something that is Man made (despite humans being a part of nature and despite the materials being those that can be found in nature) is certainly not something that is formed by nature. |
So humans are supernatural, then?
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
Now I understand why your so quick to call others stupid. You feel the need to try and make yourself feel like anything but that very thing. Especially for such a ridiculous claim. "A man made bridge is hardly artificial". You just made my day with that one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial
From your own link:
You see how ridiculous it sounds when I do it, yet you have no problem doing it yourself....
Yes, by certain specific definitions a computer might not be considered natural, yet by other equally if not more valid meanings of the same word, it most certainly can be. You take issue when I engage in the very behavior you've been pulling for the last several days, yet you never hesitate to call me the hypocrite.
QUOTE
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
So man-made bridges aren't genuine?You see how ridiculous it sounds when I do it, yet you have no problem doing it yourself....
Yes, by certain specific definitions a computer might not be considered natural, yet by other equally if not more valid meanings of the same word, it most certainly can be. You take issue when I engage in the very behavior you've been pulling for the last several days, yet you never hesitate to call me the hypocrite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile. |
So man-made bridges aren't genuine?
You see how ridiculous it sounds when I do it, yet you have no problem doing it yourself....
Yes, by certain specific definitions a computer might not be considered natural, yet by other equally if not more valid meanings of the same word, it most certainly can be. You take issue when I engage in the very behavior you've been pulling for the last several days, yet you never hesitate to call me the hypocrite.
It doesn't get any more clear than definition 1. a. and I don't see any of the other definitions make true to your statement so unlike the word natural, it's not a matter of in what context the word was used. It's a flat out incorrect statement and a perfect example of just how much of a dumb *** you really are.
You see how ridiculous it sounds when I do it, yet you have no problem doing it yourself....
Yes, by certain specific definitions a computer might not be considered natural, yet by other equally if not more valid meanings of the same word, it most certainly can be. You take issue when I engage in the very behavior you've been pulling for the last several days, yet you never hesitate to call me the hypocrite.
It doesn't get any more clear than definition 1. a. and I don't see any of the other definitions make true to your statement so unlike the word natural, it's not a matter of in what context the word was used. It's a flat out incorrect statement and a perfect example of just how much of a dumb *** you really are.
So the man who can't for the life of him figure out how to say dumbass without getting the word censored thinks I'm stupid. And why? Because I engage in the same behavior he engages in, and in a manner which demonstrates more intelligence and creativity than him. Are you certain a man-made bridge doesn't fit the definition of "genuine"? I'm pretty sure it does... 
Show me even the slightest hint of evidence that me taking a vaccine will lower my child's ability to fight off infectious diseases, I dare you.
Your whole position is based on an appeal to nature (logical fallacy) which is defended by assuming false information (another fallacy), cherry picking definitions (another fallacy), hurling insults instead of responding to points (another fallacy), distorting statistical information to suit your own ends (yet another fallacy), and interpreting 'evidence' you yourself concocted to mean the exact opposite of what it evinces (yet another fallacy).
Your whole argument is rotten to the core. The funny part is that you're not only too stupid to know it, you're also stupid enough to get self-righteous about it.
QUOTE
Ah yes, as long as it doesn't affect you. Never mind your children (last thing the world needs is for you to spawn) or your children's children or your children's children's children, etc. They can have their immunities weaker because the natural process of evolution has been artificially tampered with, as long as you are fine.
There we go with that artificial preference for so called 'natural' things again... Show me even the slightest hint of evidence that me taking a vaccine will lower my child's ability to fight off infectious diseases, I dare you.
Your whole position is based on an appeal to nature (logical fallacy) which is defended by assuming false information (another fallacy), cherry picking definitions (another fallacy), hurling insults instead of responding to points (another fallacy), distorting statistical information to suit your own ends (yet another fallacy), and interpreting 'evidence' you yourself concocted to mean the exact opposite of what it evinces (yet another fallacy).
Your whole argument is rotten to the core. The funny part is that you're not only too stupid to know it, you're also stupid enough to get self-righteous about it.
I just thought I'd add something to the question of the meaning of "natural."
Very important to the definition of the word is the definition of it's root word.
http://www.answers.com/topic/nature
Very important to the definition of the word is the definition of it's root word.
http://www.answers.com/topic/nature
QUOTE
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.
I've emphasized those relevant to my continued usage of the word. Those two which are not emphasized are the ones you continue to insist are the only relevant meanings, although in a pinch, even #3 could be said to be applicable to my usage.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.
How typical. Why am I not surprised that you would use the definition that doesn't apply to the subject matter.
This is the one your looking for...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character
2. (often capital, esp when personified) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations
4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization
5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside
6. disposition or temperament
7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour
8. the normal biological needs or urges of the body
9. sort; kind; character
10. the real appearance of a person or thing a painting very true to nature
11. accepted standards of basic morality or behaviour
12. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology the complement of genetic material that partly determines the structure of an organism; genotype Compare nurture [3]
13. Irish sympathy and fondness for one's own people or native place she is full of nature
against nature unnatural or immoral
by nature essentially or innately
call of nature Informal, euphemistic or humorous the need to urinate or defecate
from nature using natural models in drawing, painting, etc.
in (or of) the nature of essentially the same as; by way of
Show me even the slightest hint of evidence that me taking a vaccine will lower my child's ability to fight off infectious diseases, I dare you.
Are you seriously going to deny one of the evolutionary processes?
Are you going to deny that under normal circumstances when, say, a virus runs rapid through the general population of a species that those who are able to fight off the infection live to pass on their genes while the rest die? Thus ensuring future generations are capable of surviving?
Are you familiar with the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?
Now I'm not saying don't come out with vaccines but I am saying that we shouldn't come out with a vaccine for every single virus to surface. It's simply time, money and resources wasted when it should be focused on viruses that are more of a threat.
Now I could pull up the stats again on H1N1 and compare it to other viruses (instead of car accidents) but I would hope (although very doubtful) that it shouldn't be necessary to pass on the point that there are far more and deadlier viruses.
Although highly unlikely but can you imagine if the HIV were to become an airborne virus?
All it takes is a simple mutation and the vaccine is worthless.
Let's not forget that there hasn't been proper testing of the vaccine. They don't know what the long term affects will be (if any).
Absolutely. The question is though is should we squash it?
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092004.html
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=64072
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/28...e-side-effects/
Absolutely. The question is though is should we squash it?
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092004.html
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=64072
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/28...e-side-effects/
mainly because of the fear that it was rushed and long-term side effects are not yet known
So with regards to what you said...
Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect?
Why? Because the truth is that they just don't know.
Now I did forget one thing. Short term side effects.
Here is an interesting article
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...03/hiv_mutation
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect?
Why? Because the truth is that they just don't know.
Now I did forget one thing. Short term side effects.
Here is an interesting article
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...03/hiv_mutation
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
The long term effect is that you are immune to the virus!
There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood.
I back my claims unless I make em my own opinion often stating so but just read my sig.
Certainly one thing is for sure, it's something I do see a lack of by a certain few.
This is the one your looking for...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
QUOTE
1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character
2. (often capital, esp when personified) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations
4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization
5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside
6. disposition or temperament
7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour
8. the normal biological needs or urges of the body
9. sort; kind; character
10. the real appearance of a person or thing a painting very true to nature
11. accepted standards of basic morality or behaviour
12. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology the complement of genetic material that partly determines the structure of an organism; genotype Compare nurture [3]
13. Irish sympathy and fondness for one's own people or native place she is full of nature
against nature unnatural or immoral
by nature essentially or innately
call of nature Informal, euphemistic or humorous the need to urinate or defecate
from nature using natural models in drawing, painting, etc.
in (or of) the nature of essentially the same as; by way of
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character 2. (often capital, esp when personified) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man 3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations 4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization 5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside 6. disposition or temperament 7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour 8. the normal biological needs or urges of the body 9. sort; kind; character 10. the real appearance of a person or thing a painting very true to nature 11. accepted standards of basic morality or behaviour 12. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology the complement of genetic material that partly determines the structure of an organism; genotype Compare nurture [3] 13. Irish sympathy and fondness for one's own people or native place she is full of nature against nature unnatural or immoral by nature essentially or innately call of nature Informal, euphemistic or humorous the need to urinate or defecate from nature using natural models in drawing, painting, etc. in (or of) the nature of essentially the same as; by way of |
Show me even the slightest hint of evidence that me taking a vaccine will lower my child's ability to fight off infectious diseases, I dare you.
Are you seriously going to deny one of the evolutionary processes?
Are you going to deny that under normal circumstances when, say, a virus runs rapid through the general population of a species that those who are able to fight off the infection live to pass on their genes while the rest die? Thus ensuring future generations are capable of surviving?
Are you familiar with the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?
Now I'm not saying don't come out with vaccines but I am saying that we shouldn't come out with a vaccine for every single virus to surface. It's simply time, money and resources wasted when it should be focused on viruses that are more of a threat.
Now I could pull up the stats again on H1N1 and compare it to other viruses (instead of car accidents) but I would hope (although very doubtful) that it shouldn't be necessary to pass on the point that there are far more and deadlier viruses.
Although highly unlikely but can you imagine if the HIV were to become an airborne virus?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 09:16 AM)
Now I could pull up the stats again on H1N1 and compare it to other viruses (instead of car accidents) but I would hope (although very doubtful) that it shouldn't be necessary to pass on the point that there are far more and deadlier viruses.
The Spanish Flu was a variant of H1N1. It killed between 50 and 100 million people, and infected 500 million people.
All it takes is a simple mutation, and we're f*cked.
Spanish Flu
The Spanish Flu was a variant of H1N1. It killed between 50 and 100 million people, and infected 500 million people.
All it takes is a simple mutation, and we're f*cked.
Spanish Flu
QUOTE
All it takes is a simple mutation, and we're f*cked.
All it takes is a simple mutation and the vaccine is worthless.
Let's not forget that there hasn't been proper testing of the vaccine. They don't know what the long term affects will be (if any).
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 09:43 AM)
All it takes is a simple mutation and the vaccine is worthless.
All the better to quash it now so that it doesn't mutate! Vaccines aren't like antibiotics. They are harder for a virus to adapt to.
What kind of idiocy is this? What vaccines do you know of that have had negative long-term effects? All it is is a weakened form of the virus. The long term effect is that you are immune to the virus! You have yet to back up your claim with anything other than your own ignorance.
All the better to quash it now so that it doesn't mutate! Vaccines aren't like antibiotics. They are harder for a virus to adapt to.
QUOTE
Let's not forget that there hasn't been proper testing of the vaccine. They don't know what the long term affects will be (if any).
What kind of idiocy is this? What vaccines do you know of that have had negative long-term effects? All it is is a weakened form of the virus. The long term effect is that you are immune to the virus! You have yet to back up your claim with anything other than your own ignorance.
QUOTE
All the better to quash it now so that it doesn't mutate! Vaccines aren't like antibiotics. They are harder for a virus to adapt to.
Absolutely. The question is though is should we squash it?
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092004.html
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=64072
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/28...e-side-effects/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All the better to quash it now so that it doesn't mutate! Vaccines aren't like antibiotics. They are harder for a virus to adapt to. |
Absolutely. The question is though is should we squash it?
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092004.html
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=64072
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/28...e-side-effects/
mainly because of the fear that it was rushed and long-term side effects are not yet known
So with regards to what you said...
QUOTE
What vaccines do you know of that have had negative long-term effects
Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect?
Why? Because the truth is that they just don't know.
Now I did forget one thing. Short term side effects.
Here is an interesting article
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...03/hiv_mutation
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What vaccines do you know of that have had negative long-term effects |
Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect?
Why? Because the truth is that they just don't know.
Now I did forget one thing. Short term side effects.
Here is an interesting article
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...03/hiv_mutation
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
The long term effect is that you are immune to the virus!
There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood.
QUOTE
You have yet to back up your claim with anything other than your own ignorance.
I back my claims unless I make em my own opinion often stating so but just read my sig.
Certainly one thing is for sure, it's something I do see a lack of by a certain few.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 10:46 AM)
Absolutely. The question is though is should we squash it?
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
None of the more serious side-effects were determined to have any causal link to the vaccine itself, aside from time only. In other words, if you have a lifestyle-induced heart attack after taking a vaccine, is that the vaccine's fault?
HPV Vaccine: Safety
13,758 adverse side-effects per 24 MILLION doses seems pretty good to me.
Of those, 93% were non-serious. (Those with serious side-effects make up .004% of the total)
That is because it is the vaccine manufacturer's job to investigate every possibility, no matter how unlikely. Furthermore, you can't test the long-term side-effects without LONG TERM USAGE.
That is because it is the vaccine manufacturer's job to investigate every possibility, no matter how unlikely. Furthermore, you can't test the long-term side-effects without LONG TERM USAGE.
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood.
OF COURSE natural immunity is better, but artificial immunity is better than NO immunity.
Your strategy seems to be: "I'm not sure about this vaccine, so let's just have everyone get sick and hope for the best!"
OF COURSE we should do the research, but we can't delay distributing a potentially life-saving vaccine because of the extremely unlikely potential for long-term side-effects. You have a higher chance of DYING from the virus than you have of suffering serious side-effects.
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
OF COURSE natural immunity is better, but artificial immunity is better than NO immunity.
Unless your totally and utterly dependent on artificial immunity because of the passing of genes that allow for weakened immune systems.
That just happened to have been acknowledged as accurate by the British Medical Journal.
That just happened to have been acknowledged as accurate by the British Medical Journal.
Note: The article above was written in early 2005. On December 10, 2005, the British Medical Journal published a report acknowledging the veracity of this article by substantiating the claim that CDC flu death figures are completely bogus, hyper-inflated to scare the public and sell more flu vaccine.
Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness.
Nature, she can be a real bitch.
Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness.
Nature, she can be a real bitch.
You still have not shown that the flu vaccine will kill more people than it will save.
Nor should I. I've never made the claim. I have only claimed that we do more harm than good in the long run by reaching for vaccine after vaccine for every disease to surface, specifically for those which are naturally manageable (to the majority of the population) by our own immune system.
Some would also argue that there are far worse fates then death. So basing the use of a vaccine solely on that it results in less deaths (or a lower chance of death) than the actual disease is a poor one.
Also regarding vaccine side effects...
None of the more serious side-effects were determined to have any causal link to the vaccine itself, aside from time only. In other words, if you have a lifestyle-induced heart attack after taking a vaccine, is that the vaccine's fault?
HPV Vaccine: Safety
13,758 adverse side-effects per 24 MILLION doses seems pretty good to me.
Of those, 93% were non-serious. (Those with serious side-effects make up .004% of the total)
QUOTE
Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect?
That is because it is the vaccine manufacturer's job to investigate every possibility, no matter how unlikely. Furthermore, you can't test the long-term side-effects without LONG TERM USAGE.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why the concern for long-term side effects if vaccines have never, ever been known to cause any? Why would they have such a statement? Why wouldn't they just flat out say that, vaccines are not known to have any long-term side effect? |
That is because it is the vaccine manufacturer's job to investigate every possibility, no matter how unlikely. Furthermore, you can't test the long-term side-effects without LONG TERM USAGE.
People's natural immunity is helping the cause...
There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood.
OF COURSE natural immunity is better, but artificial immunity is better than NO immunity.
Your strategy seems to be: "I'm not sure about this vaccine, so let's just have everyone get sick and hope for the best!"
OF COURSE we should do the research, but we can't delay distributing a potentially life-saving vaccine because of the extremely unlikely potential for long-term side-effects. You have a higher chance of DYING from the virus than you have of suffering serious side-effects.
QUOTE
Your strategy seems to be: "I'm not sure about this vaccine, so let's just have everyone get sick and hope for the best!"
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your strategy seems to be: "I'm not sure about this vaccine, so let's just have everyone get sick and hope for the best!" |
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
OF COURSE natural immunity is better, but artificial immunity is better than NO immunity.
Unless your totally and utterly dependent on artificial immunity because of the passing of genes that allow for weakened immune systems.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 12:42 PM)
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
Wow, a crank website! How original!
If you fully read the article on the Spanish Flu, you will learn that those with STRONG IMMUNE SYSTEMS were the MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to the virus. That particular strain of H1N1 killed by triggering an immune overreaction. Thus, the highest death toll was among healthy young adults.
You still have not shown that the flu vaccine will kill more people than it will save.
Wow, a crank website! How original!
QUOTE
Unless your totally and utterly dependent on artificial immunity because of the passing of genes that allow for weakened immune systems.
If you fully read the article on the Spanish Flu, you will learn that those with STRONG IMMUNE SYSTEMS were the MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to the virus. That particular strain of H1N1 killed by triggering an immune overreaction. Thus, the highest death toll was among healthy young adults.
You still have not shown that the flu vaccine will kill more people than it will save.
QUOTE
Wow, a crank website! How original!
That just happened to have been acknowledged as accurate by the British Medical Journal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wow, a crank website! How original! |
That just happened to have been acknowledged as accurate by the British Medical Journal.
Note: The article above was written in early 2005. On December 10, 2005, the British Medical Journal published a report acknowledging the veracity of this article by substantiating the claim that CDC flu death figures are completely bogus, hyper-inflated to scare the public and sell more flu vaccine.
QUOTE
If you fully read the article on the Spanish Flu, you will learn that those with STRONG IMMUNE SYSTEMS were the MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to the virus. That particular strain of H1N1 killed by triggering an immune overreaction. Thus, the highest death toll was among healthy young adults
Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness.
Nature, she can be a real bitch.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you fully read the article on the Spanish Flu, you will learn that those with STRONG IMMUNE SYSTEMS were the MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to the virus. That particular strain of H1N1 killed by triggering an immune overreaction. Thus, the highest death toll was among healthy young adults |
Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness.
Nature, she can be a real bitch.
You still have not shown that the flu vaccine will kill more people than it will save.
Nor should I. I've never made the claim. I have only claimed that we do more harm than good in the long run by reaching for vaccine after vaccine for every disease to surface, specifically for those which are naturally manageable (to the majority of the population) by our own immune system.
Some would also argue that there are far worse fates then death. So basing the use of a vaccine solely on that it results in less deaths (or a lower chance of death) than the actual disease is a poor one.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 02:21 PM)
That just happened to have been acknowledged as accurate by the British Medical Journal.
Really? So if post on my website: "This website has been approved by the President of the United States," does that make it legit?
(edit) I found the original BMJ article, and it doesn't go nearly as far as your crank website does.
Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution.
Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution.
Nor should I. I've never made the claim. I have only claimed that we do more harm than good in the long run by reaching for vaccine after vaccine for every disease to surface, specifically for those which are naturally manageable (to the majority of the population) by our own immune system.
Each vaccine is different, you can't overuse them in the same way you can overuse antibiotics. Notice that no-one bothers to get vaccinated for the "seasonal flu" because it kills very few people. The current swine flu has a much higher infection/death rate.
So now being vaccinated is worse than death? Or is it just that you can't help making non-sequitur arguments?
Really? So if post on my website: "This website has been approved by the President of the United States," does that make it legit?
(edit) I found the original BMJ article, and it doesn't go nearly as far as your crank website does.
QUOTE
Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness.
Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah yes, one particular version resulted in an immunity overreaction. Depending on how you look at that, it too can be seen as a weakness. |
Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution.
Nor should I. I've never made the claim. I have only claimed that we do more harm than good in the long run by reaching for vaccine after vaccine for every disease to surface, specifically for those which are naturally manageable (to the majority of the population) by our own immune system.
Each vaccine is different, you can't overuse them in the same way you can overuse antibiotics. Notice that no-one bothers to get vaccinated for the "seasonal flu" because it kills very few people. The current swine flu has a much higher infection/death rate.
QUOTE
Some would also argue that there are far worse fates then death. So basing the use of a vaccine solely on that it results in less deaths (or a lower chance of death) than the actual disease is a poor one.
So now being vaccinated is worse than death? Or is it just that you can't help making non-sequitur arguments?
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 08:16 AM)
How typical. Why am I not surprised that you would use the definition that doesn't apply to the subject matter.
This is the one your looking for...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
It doesn't apply? How does it not apply?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it (but noticeably, doesn't exclude it, either).
So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it (but noticeably, doesn't exclude it, either).
Are you seriously going to deny one of the evolutionary processes?
This is the one your looking for...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
It doesn't apply? How does it not apply?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
QUOTE
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it (but noticeably, doesn't exclude it, either).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers. 4. natural scenery. 5. the universe, with all its phenomena. 6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe. 7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature. 8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature. 9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature. 10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature. 11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature. 12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind. 13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements. 14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state. 15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature. 16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism. 17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace. |
So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it (but noticeably, doesn't exclude it, either).
Are you seriously going to deny one of the evolutionary processes?
No, you idiot. You're just too stupid to understand what I'm saying. You act as if the stock of the vaccine we have now is the only stock that will ever be produced. WE CAN MAKE MORE, DUMBASS!

QUOTE
Are you going to deny that under normal circumstances when, say, a virus runs rapid through the general population of a species that those who are able to fight off the infection live to pass on their genes while the rest die? Thus ensuring future generations are capable of surviving?
Are you familiar with the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?
Ahhhh, so you're advocating social Darwinism. How many times have you read Mein Kamph, and do you prefer it or the Turner Diaries as your favorite book?Are you familiar with the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you going to deny that under normal circumstances when, say, a virus runs rapid through the general population of a species that those who are able to fight off the infection live to pass on their genes while the rest die? Thus ensuring future generations are capable of surviving? Are you familiar with the phrase "Survival of the fittest"? |
Ahhhh, so you're advocating social Darwinism. How many times have you read Mein Kamph, and do you prefer it or the Turner Diaries as your favorite book?
Now I'm not saying don't come out with vaccines but I am saying that we shouldn't come out with a vaccine for every single virus to surface. It's simply time, money and resources wasted when it should be focused on viruses that are more of a threat.
Now I'm not saying don't come out with vaccines but I am saying that we shouldn't come out with a vaccine for every single virus to surface. It's simply time, money and resources wasted when it should be focused on viruses that are more of a threat.
So you wouldn't mind being infected with the H1N1/09 virus, then?
QUOTE
Now I could pull up the stats again on H1N1 and compare it to other viruses (instead of car accidents) but I would hope (although very doubtful) that it shouldn't be necessary to pass on the point that there are far more and deadlier viruses.
The thing about deadly viruses is, they tend to die out quickly. Despite what you've seen in sci-fi movies, viruses which quickly kill their host are not precision killing machines, but evolutionary rejects. So when there's an Ebola Zaire outbreak in a village in Africa, the village tends to get wiped out before it can spread. This is bad for the virus, and thus hurts the virus' chance of avoiding extinction. End result, past a certain point, the more deadly a virus is, the less dangerous it is for us as a species.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now I could pull up the stats again on H1N1 and compare it to other viruses (instead of car accidents) but I would hope (although very doubtful) that it shouldn't be necessary to pass on the point that there are far more and deadlier viruses. |
The thing about deadly viruses is, they tend to die out quickly. Despite what you've seen in sci-fi movies, viruses which quickly kill their host are not precision killing machines, but evolutionary rejects. So when there's an Ebola Zaire outbreak in a village in Africa, the village tends to get wiped out before it can spread. This is bad for the virus, and thus hurts the virus' chance of avoiding extinction. End result, past a certain point, the more deadly a virus is, the less dangerous it is for us as a species.
Although highly unlikely but can you imagine if the HIV were to become an airborne virus?
Although highly unlikely but can you imagine if the HIV were to become an airborne virus?
I'm not real worried about it. There's been reports of a vaccine with 30% effectiveness, there's a post-exposure prophylaxis antiretroviral drug, and there the HAART cocktail. Plus, if HIV were to become an airborne disease, the amount of money and effort put into discovering a vaccine and a cure would skyrocket, likely leading to one well before people start dropping dead, even people who aren't treated.
QUOTE
All it takes is a simple mutation and the vaccine is worthless.
All it takes is a couple weeks of research, and a new vaccine exists.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All it takes is a simple mutation and the vaccine is worthless. |
All it takes is a couple weeks of research, and a new vaccine exists.
Let's not forget that there hasn't been proper testing of the vaccine. They don't know what the long term affects will be (if any).
Let's not forget that there hasn't been proper testing of the vaccine. They don't know what the long term affects will be (if any).
Name me a single long term side effect to any flu vaccine.
Exactly my point.
Exactly my point.
Each vaccine is different, you can't overuse them in the same way you can overuse antibiotics
I wasn't referring to the virus evolving to overcome the vaccine like bacteria evolving to become antibiotic resistant. I was referring to those who are genetically predisposed to having a weakened immune system surviving the infection through artificial means to turn around and have multiple children who probably have multiple each passing along this genetic weakness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
You have yet to back up your claim with anything other than your own ignorance.
Talk about eating your own words because that is all I am seeing from you.
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
However my decision not to take the vaccine for this flu has nothing to do with side effect, it has to do with that I believe I am healthy enough to handle it and would prefer to develop a natural immunity than an artificial one.
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
However my decision not to take the vaccine for this flu has nothing to do with side effect, it has to do with that I believe I am healthy enough to handle it and would prefer to develop a natural immunity than an artificial one.
You're just too stupid to understand what I'm saying.
Try the other way around considering that allowing those who genetically have weak immune systems to survive and pass on this weakness has nothing to do with being able to make more vaccines nor do I ever show that there is a 'limited supply'. If that is what you interpreted then you once again demonstrate just how stupid you are.
Did you even bother to read what you quoted.
Did you even bother to read what you quoted.
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. [/u]
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
It's the definition of nature in which I was referring!!! Esp. definition #1 and #2.
Compare it to what you quoted last and compare it to what I quoted last. You'll see quite clearly it matches up with what I quoted last.
No more than I would mind getting the seasonal flu.
QUOTE
There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood.
Sources? And your sources will need to show that this is a common side effect, not one that happens in 0.01% of subjects.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are cases where an artificially induced immunity will wear off leaving you vulnerable again. Typically when young children get a vaccine and loose the immunity by the time they are adults. Booster shots are required. However, cases where young children have been infected and developed a natural immunity have held on to it well into adulthood. |
Sources? And your sources will need to show that this is a common side effect, not one that happens in 0.01% of subjects.
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
ROFLMAO
Oh, and for the record? The vaccine doesn't produce an "artificial immunity". Vaccines engender immunities the same way getting sick and getting well engenders them, dumbass.
QUOTE
Unless your totally and utterly dependent on artificial immunity because of the passing of genes that allow for weakened immune systems.
I got news for you: There's never been a single reported case of an in vivo mutation causing a beneficial effect. Since that possibility is so remote, you're still advocating for social Darwinism. Which makes sense on a certain level. Right now, let's kill off the people who can't fight off this flu. Next, let's kill off the people who can't fight off AIDS (and take care of overpopulation in the process!) Next, we'll kill off the people with an IQ less than 90 (don't worry, you can cheat). Finally, let's kill off the people who believe conspiracy theories and alarmist propaganda. Oh crap, there's a record of that with you... You're screwed.Oh, and for the record? The vaccine doesn't produce an "artificial immunity". Vaccines engender immunities the same way getting sick and getting well engenders them, dumbass.
QUOTE
Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution.
Exactly my point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Viruses exploit weaknesses. Nothing is going to change that. If you make one thing stronger, a virus will come along that will attack another weak point. Evolution. |
Exactly my point.
Each vaccine is different, you can't overuse them in the same way you can overuse antibiotics
I wasn't referring to the virus evolving to overcome the vaccine like bacteria evolving to become antibiotic resistant. I was referring to those who are genetically predisposed to having a weakened immune system surviving the infection through artificial means to turn around and have multiple children who probably have multiple each passing along this genetic weakness.
QUOTE
Notice that no-one bothers to get vaccinated for the "seasonal flu" because it kills very few people. The current swine flu has a much higher infection/death rate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Notice that no-one bothers to get vaccinated for the "seasonal flu" because it kills very few people. The current swine flu has a much higher infection/death rate. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
You have yet to back up your claim with anything other than your own ignorance.
Talk about eating your own words because that is all I am seeing from you.
QUOTE
So now being vaccinated is worse than death?
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
However my decision not to take the vaccine for this flu has nothing to do with side effect, it has to do with that I believe I am healthy enough to handle it and would prefer to develop a natural immunity than an artificial one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So now being vaccinated is worse than death? |
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
However my decision not to take the vaccine for this flu has nothing to do with side effect, it has to do with that I believe I am healthy enough to handle it and would prefer to develop a natural immunity than an artificial one.
You're just too stupid to understand what I'm saying.
Try the other way around considering that allowing those who genetically have weak immune systems to survive and pass on this weakness has nothing to do with being able to make more vaccines nor do I ever show that there is a 'limited supply'. If that is what you interpreted then you once again demonstrate just how stupid you are.
QUOTE
So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it
Did you even bother to read what you quoted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So there's two different sources which include the definition I offered, to your one source which doesn't include it |
Did you even bother to read what you quoted.
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. [/u]
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
Compare it to what you quoted last and compare it to what I quoted last. You'll see quite clearly it matches up with what I quoted last.
QUOTE
So you wouldn't mind being infected with the H1N1/09 virus, then?
No more than I would mind getting the seasonal flu.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 03:51 PM)
Exactly my point.
No, my point was that even a "strong" immune system can be gamed by a new virus.
Let's let evolution make decisions for itself. "Helping evolution along" is nothing more than folly.
Let's let evolution make decisions for itself. "Helping evolution along" is nothing more than folly.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
I seem to remember hearing about the death toll in Mexico before it got to the US. Obviously, its impact in the USA was less than its impact in Mexico, but we didn't know that when we were preparing for a pandemic.
Keep trying.
Keep trying.
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
Of course you can swing things your way if you play around with statistics. Unfortunately for your point of view, you have a much higher chance of dying from the flu than getting the vaccine's nastier (alleged) side-effects.
My decision has more to do with the fact that I don't like needles.
No, my point was that even a "strong" immune system can be gamed by a new virus.
QUOTE
I wasn't referring to the virus evolving to overcome the vaccine like bacteria evolving to become antibiotic resistant. I was referring to those who are genetically predisposed to having a weakened immune system surviving the infection through artificial means to turn around and have multiple children who probably have multiple each passing along this genetic weakness.
Let's let evolution make decisions for itself. "Helping evolution along" is nothing more than folly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I wasn't referring to the virus evolving to overcome the vaccine like bacteria evolving to become antibiotic resistant. I was referring to those who are genetically predisposed to having a weakened immune system surviving the infection through artificial means to turn around and have multiple children who probably have multiple each passing along this genetic weakness. |
Let's let evolution make decisions for itself. "Helping evolution along" is nothing more than folly.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Here is a more informed article
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E58E6NZ20090916
I seem to remember hearing about the death toll in Mexico before it got to the US. Obviously, its impact in the USA was less than its impact in Mexico, but we didn't know that when we were preparing for a pandemic.
QUOTE
Talk about eating your own words because that is all I am seeing from you.
Keep trying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Talk about eating your own words because that is all I am seeing from you. |
Keep trying.
As I have already clearly stated, it depends on the side effect and depends on the individual. As a fictitious and exaggerated example (since it's required to point these things out before I do them considering the lack of intelligence to a certain few), If a vaccine has a side effect that leads to paralysis and even though the % of experiencing this side effect is low (say <1%), to some people they would rather take their chances with the disease depending on the mortality rate, to others they will simply take their chances regardless of mortality rate.
Of course you can swing things your way if you play around with statistics. Unfortunately for your point of view, you have a much higher chance of dying from the flu than getting the vaccine's nastier (alleged) side-effects.
QUOTE
However my decision not to take the vaccine for this flu has nothing to do with side effect, it has to do with that I believe I am healthy enough to handle it and would prefer to develop a natural immunity than an artificial one.
My decision has more to do with the fact that I don't like needles.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 22 2009, 02:51 PM)
Try the other way around considering that allowing those who genetically have weak immune systems to survive and pass on this weakness has nothing to do with being able to make more vaccines nor do I ever show that there is a 'limited supply'. If that is what you interpreted then you once again demonstrate just how stupid you are.
1. Again, you're advocating social Darwinism. There's a word for that: Evil.
2. If the vaccine exists, there is no need for a strong 'natural' immunity.
2. Definition number 5 doesn't count? What about number 6? What about number 1 from the last link? That's still two positive pieces of evidence to one neutral piece, in my favor, dumbass. The preponderance of evidence supports my position.
No, it's already been covered. What's wrong, can't see that on your own? Well it'll have to do cause I'm not about to point it out.
No, it's already been covered. What's wrong, can't see that on your own? Well it'll have to do cause I'm not about to point it out.
You could always just hurl an unqualified insult and pretend that actually counts for something, I've noticed you're not averse to doing that.
What can I say except that I have no issues at all with bringing myself down to the level of the person I'm dealing with and fighting fire with fire.
You should really take notes from flyingbuttressman, unlike yourself he knows how to put up an argument.
1. Again, you're advocating social Darwinism. There's a word for that: Evil.
2. If the vaccine exists, there is no need for a strong 'natural' immunity.
QUOTE
Did you even bother to read what you quoted.
1. Especially != Exclusively. The first definition is actually two in one. Very efficient.2. Definition number 5 doesn't count? What about number 6? What about number 1 from the last link? That's still two positive pieces of evidence to one neutral piece, in my favor, dumbass. The preponderance of evidence supports my position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you even bother to read what you quoted. |
1. Especially != Exclusively. The first definition is actually two in one. Very efficient.
2. Definition number 5 doesn't count? What about number 6? What about number 1 from the last link? That's still two positive pieces of evidence to one neutral piece, in my favor, dumbass. The preponderance of evidence supports my position.
It's the definition of nature in which I was referring!!! Esp. definition #1 and #2.
2. Definition number 5 doesn't count? What about number 6? What about number 1 from the last link? That's still two positive pieces of evidence to one neutral piece, in my favor, dumbass. The preponderance of evidence supports my position.
Definition 1 doesn't exclude man-made constructs, dumbass. Remember, especially != exclusively.
Why haven't you responded to anything else I said, dumbass? Whassa matta, can't come up with a good argument? You could always just hurl an unqualified insult and pretend that actually counts for something, I've noticed you're not averse to doing that.
QUOTE
No more than I would mind getting the seasonal flu.
That was a rhetorical question, dumbass. Thanks for the stupid answer, though.Why haven't you responded to anything else I said, dumbass? Whassa matta, can't come up with a good argument? You could always just hurl an unqualified insult and pretend that actually counts for something, I've noticed you're not averse to doing that.
QUOTE
Why haven't you responded to anything else I said, dumbass? Whassa matta, can't come up with a good argument?
No, it's already been covered. What's wrong, can't see that on your own? Well it'll have to do cause I'm not about to point it out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why haven't you responded to anything else I said, dumbass? Whassa matta, can't come up with a good argument? |
No, it's already been covered. What's wrong, can't see that on your own? Well it'll have to do cause I'm not about to point it out.
You could always just hurl an unqualified insult and pretend that actually counts for something, I've noticed you're not averse to doing that.
What can I say except that I have no issues at all with bringing myself down to the level of the person I'm dealing with and fighting fire with fire.
You should really take notes from flyingbuttressman, unlike yourself he knows how to put up an argument.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 01:36 PM)
No, it's already been covered. What's wrong, can't see that on your own? Well it'll have to do cause I'm not about to point it out.
By whom? Certainly not you. You've spent more time harping on the fact that you can't wrap your head around there being multiple meanings to the word "natural" than you have about the actual topic at hand.
Some points you never responded to:
Dismissing it as "ludicrous"? no, but dismissing it? yes. Especially when you consider that I addressed most of those points correctly and finally for which there wasn't a reply. Thus dismissed.
I would but you would only dismiss it.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
I would but you would only dismiss it.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of
squalene, Tween 80 and Span85.
•All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found toxic. All rats
developed an MS-like disease that left them crippled, dragging
their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages.
•Squalene caused severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4). Squalene in
humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune
responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
Reference: Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants."
Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171.
Reference: Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government
Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First
Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p54.
Also the following came from a parenting forum (my wife does that one).
Dear all:
A collegue and friend just returned yesterday from a conference in Washington with the National vaccine Information Center. Please read this article and take it very seriously.
Dr. Jordan Plasker
201.5050.WELL(9355)
www.drplasker.com
An FYI on swine flu vaccine.
Please read and discuss with your doctor.
A friend sent me an email from Dr. Blaylock, which I have recopied below along with the link to his bio. I have also included the long article from his web site.
His email regarding the swine flu read:
"No one should take this vaccine - it is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever devised. It contains an immune adjuvant called squalene (MF-59) which has been shown to cause severe autoimmune disorders such as MS, rheumatoid arthritis and Lupus. The newsletter for August covers this and it may not be out yet. This is the vaccine adjuvant that is strongly linked to the Gulf War syndrome, which killed over 10,000 soldiers and caused a 200% increase in the fatal disease ALS (Lou Gehreg disease). This virus H1N1 kills by causing a "cytokine storm", which means that it causes the body's immune system to overreact and that is why it is killing young people and is a mild disease in the elderly. (The elderly have weakened immune systems) This vaccine is a very powerful immune stimulator and carries the real possibility of making the lethality of the virus much greater.
One's best protection is vitamin D3...One should take 5000 IU a day now and when the disease begins to spread increase the dose to 15,000 IU a day. Vitamin D3 modulates the immune reaction, reducing the chance of an overreaction and stimulates the body to produce what are called antimicrobial peptides, which are powerful killers of viruses that does not involve immunity. This is dose related, which means the higher the dose of D3 the better the protection. Fish oils (the best is Carlson's Norwegian lemon flavored fish oil) also reduce immune overreaction. One teaspoon a day should be sufficient. For severe symptoms, one teaspoon twice a day. Antioxidants of various kinds also help.
Some points you never responded to:
- Me pointing out that serial killers are a natural product of humanity.
- Me pointing out that warfare comes naturally to humanity.
- Me pointing out that nuclear war is an incredibly unlikely occurrence.
- Me pointing out that serial killers kill very few people in comparison to almost any mortal illness.
- Me pointing out the absurdity of your claim that it's understandable to get worked up over an extremely unlikely death, but not okay to get worked up over one which is a real possibility.
- Me pointing out your dishonesty in including only examples of deliberate infection of Native Americans by Europeans in your attempt to refute buttershug.
- Me pointing out the fact that we have a vaccine in response to your claim that there's nothing we can do about this virus.
- Me pointing out the absurdity of your claim that computers aren't natural because they don't grow on trees.
- Me pointing out the incompetence of your attempt to calculate statistics.
- Me pointing out your hypocrisy in critiquing me for relying on one, narrow definition of the word "artificial," while you continued to insist on one, narrow definition of the word "natural."
- Me pointing out the absurdity of your preference for 'natural' things as opposed to artificial things.
- Me pointing out that your position boils down to social Darwinism (survival of the fittest humans), which is agreed upon by almost all people to be a downright evil proposition.
QUOTE
What can I say except that I have no issues at all with bringing myself down to the level of the person I'm dealing with and fighting fire with fire.
Really? Find a single example of me dismissing something you said as "ludicrous" without explaining why. Come on, just one. I dare you, you lying sack of monkey ѕhit.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What can I say except that I have no issues at all with bringing myself down to the level of the person I'm dealing with and fighting fire with fire. |
Really? Find a single example of me dismissing something you said as "ludicrous" without explaining why. Come on, just one. I dare you, you lying sack of monkey ѕhit.
You should really take notes from flyingbuttressman, unlike yourself he knows how to put up an argument.
You should really take notes from flyingbuttressman, unlike yourself he knows how to put up an argument.
FBM does know how to argue, you're right about that. Unfortunately for the sake of your credibility, his argument here contains several errors, which I haven't pointed out because I find it amusing that you can't spot them, and because I have no interest in discussing a subject with someone who agrees with me on almost all the major points.
QUOTE
Really? Find a single example of me dismissing something you said as "ludicrous" without explaining why. Come on, just one. I dare you, you lying sack of monkey ѕhit.
Dismissing it as "ludicrous"? no, but dismissing it? yes. Especially when you consider that I addressed most of those points correctly and finally for which there wasn't a reply. Thus dismissed.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 02:57 PM)
Dismissing it as "ludicrous"? no, but dismissing it? yes.
Prove it. Give me some evidence.
Prove it. Give me some evidence.
You're so full of ѕhit I can see your eyes turning brown from here.
Prove it. Give me some evidence.
QUOTE
Especially when you consider that I addressed most of those points correctly and finally for which there wasn't a reply. Thus dismissed.
Prove it. Give me some evidence.
You're so full of ѕhit I can see your eyes turning brown from here.
QUOTE
Prove it. Give me some evidence.
I would but you would only dismiss it.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Prove it. Give me some evidence. |
I would but you would only dismiss it.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of
squalene, Tween 80 and Span85.
•All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found toxic. All rats
developed an MS-like disease that left them crippled, dragging
their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages.
•Squalene caused severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4). Squalene in
humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune
responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
Reference: Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants."
Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171.
Reference: Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government
Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First
Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p54.
Also the following came from a parenting forum (my wife does that one).
QUOTE
Dear all:
A collegue and friend just returned yesterday from a conference in Washington with the National vaccine Information Center. Please read this article and take it very seriously.
Dr. Jordan Plasker
201.5050.WELL(9355)
www.drplasker.com
An FYI on swine flu vaccine.
Please read and discuss with your doctor.
A friend sent me an email from Dr. Blaylock, which I have recopied below along with the link to his bio. I have also included the long article from his web site.
His email regarding the swine flu read:
"No one should take this vaccine - it is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever devised. It contains an immune adjuvant called squalene (MF-59) which has been shown to cause severe autoimmune disorders such as MS, rheumatoid arthritis and Lupus. The newsletter for August covers this and it may not be out yet. This is the vaccine adjuvant that is strongly linked to the Gulf War syndrome, which killed over 10,000 soldiers and caused a 200% increase in the fatal disease ALS (Lou Gehreg disease). This virus H1N1 kills by causing a "cytokine storm", which means that it causes the body's immune system to overreact and that is why it is killing young people and is a mild disease in the elderly. (The elderly have weakened immune systems) This vaccine is a very powerful immune stimulator and carries the real possibility of making the lethality of the virus much greater.
One's best protection is vitamin D3...One should take 5000 IU a day now and when the disease begins to spread increase the dose to 15,000 IU a day. Vitamin D3 modulates the immune reaction, reducing the chance of an overreaction and stimulates the body to produce what are called antimicrobial peptides, which are powerful killers of viruses that does not involve immunity. This is dose related, which means the higher the dose of D3 the better the protection. Fish oils (the best is Carlson's Norwegian lemon flavored fish oil) also reduce immune overreaction. One teaspoon a day should be sufficient. For severe symptoms, one teaspoon twice a day. Antioxidants of various kinds also help.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 31 2009, 05:01 PM)
I would but you would only dismiss it.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
How typical, you resort to a complete quack to back you up...
Try this for some more reputable information:
Response after One Dose of a Monovalent Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Vaccine -- Preliminary Report
You should really do some research before you assume somebody's a reputable source just because they have some initials after their name.
Russell Blaylock
You should really do some research before you assume somebody's a reputable source just because they have some initials after their name.
Russell BlaylockRussell L. Blaylock, MD is a retired neurosurgeon and author. He has stated that certain food additives such as aspartame and MSG are excitotoxic and that the H1N1 influenza vaccine carries more risk than the viral infection itself. These positions are not consistent with current scientific consensus.[1][2][3]
But that's not all! The CDC considers this vaccine to be completely safe.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_safety_qa.htm
I'm not going to provide a quote because the whole page is pretty much in disagreement with what your precious Dr. Blaylock says.
The quote you provided is particularly amusing, as it's beyond ignorant, bordering on dangerous misinformation. I have more medical expertise than the person who wrote that. What he is claiming as fact runs contrary to actual facts.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features...and-the-elderly
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
Try this for some more reputable information:
Response after One Dose of a Monovalent Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Vaccine -- Preliminary Report
QUOTE
BACKGROUND: A novel influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus is responsible for the first influenza pandemic in 41 years. A safe and effective vaccine is urgently needed. A randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group trial evaluating two doses of an inactivated, split-virus 2009 H1N1 vaccine in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years is ongoing at a single site in Australia. METHODS: This preliminary report evaluates the immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine 21 days after the first of two scheduled doses. A total of 240 subjects, equally divided into two age groups (<50 years and >/=50 years), were enrolled and underwent randomization to receive either 15 mug or 30 mug of hemagglutinin antigen by intramuscular injection. We measured antibody titers using hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization assays at baseline and 21 days after vaccination. The coprimary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of subjects with antibody titers of 1:40 or more on hemagglutination-inhibition assay, the proportion of subjects with either seroconversion or a significant increase in antibody titer, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer. RESULTS: By day 21 after vaccination, antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 116 of 120 subjects (96.7%) who received the 15-mug dose and in 112 of 120 subjects (93.3%) who received the 30-mug dose. No deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest were reported. Local discomfort (e.g., injection-site tenderness or pain) was reported by 46.3% of subjects, and systemic symptoms (e.g., headache) by 45.0% of subjects. Nearly all events were mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: A single 15-mug dose of 2009 H1N1 vaccine was immunogenic in adults, with mild-to-moderate vaccine-associated reactions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00938639.) Copyright 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.
You should really do some research before you assume somebody's a reputable source just because they have some initials after their name.
Russell Blaylock
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BACKGROUND: A novel influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus is responsible for the first influenza pandemic in 41 years. A safe and effective vaccine is urgently needed. A randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group trial evaluating two doses of an inactivated, split-virus 2009 H1N1 vaccine in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years is ongoing at a single site in Australia. METHODS: This preliminary report evaluates the immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine 21 days after the first of two scheduled doses. A total of 240 subjects, equally divided into two age groups (<50 years and >/=50 years), were enrolled and underwent randomization to receive either 15 mug or 30 mug of hemagglutinin antigen by intramuscular injection. We measured antibody titers using hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization assays at baseline and 21 days after vaccination. The coprimary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of subjects with antibody titers of 1:40 or more on hemagglutination-inhibition assay, the proportion of subjects with either seroconversion or a significant increase in antibody titer, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer. RESULTS: By day 21 after vaccination, antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 116 of 120 subjects (96.7%) who received the 15-mug dose and in 112 of 120 subjects (93.3%) who received the 30-mug dose. No deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest were reported. Local discomfort (e.g., injection-site tenderness or pain) was reported by 46.3% of subjects, and systemic symptoms (e.g., headache) by 45.0% of subjects. Nearly all events were mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: A single 15-mug dose of 2009 H1N1 vaccine was immunogenic in adults, with mild-to-moderate vaccine-associated reactions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00938639.) Copyright 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. |
You should really do some research before you assume somebody's a reputable source just because they have some initials after their name.
Russell BlaylockRussell L. Blaylock, MD is a retired neurosurgeon and author. He has stated that certain food additives such as aspartame and MSG are excitotoxic and that the H1N1 influenza vaccine carries more risk than the viral infection itself. These positions are not consistent with current scientific consensus.[1][2][3]
But that's not all! The CDC considers this vaccine to be completely safe.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_safety_qa.htm
I'm not going to provide a quote because the whole page is pretty much in disagreement with what your precious Dr. Blaylock says.
QUOTE
Also the following came from a parenting forum (my wife does that one).
Really? So how many scientific articles cite parenting forums as sources for their claims? How many times do you think a parenting website has been cited by articles published in peer-reviewed journals of medicine?http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features...and-the-elderly
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also the following came from a parenting forum (my wife does that one). |
Really? So how many scientific articles cite parenting forums as sources for their claims? How many times do you think a parenting website has been cited by articles published in peer-reviewed journals of medicine?
The quote you provided is particularly amusing, as it's beyond ignorant, bordering on dangerous misinformation. I have more medical expertise than the person who wrote that. What he is claiming as fact runs contrary to actual facts.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features...and-the-elderlyMost H1N1 cases are occurring in younger people. "It appears that older persons, who have been exposed multiple times in their life time with various flu outbreaks, may have residual immunity of which some of it is against this H1N1 flu strain," Yoshikawa tells WebMD.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-N...1-flu-CDC-tests
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9052104033.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9052104033.htmlScientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced yesterday that a study using stored blood samples found that one-third of people older than 60 have antibodies that might protect them from infection with the new virus. If further research is able to better define who has partial immunity, those people might need only one dose of vaccine, not two.
It must really suck to be you when your best chance of winning an argument lies in quoting dangerous and ignorant claims by retards who haven't got the common sense to think for themselves or even look something up. It's funny to watch you desperately grasp at straws in a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your own dishonesty and stupidity, and in the end only manage to evince your dishonesty and stupidity further.
Oh, by the way, evidence of the supposed dangers of this vaccine isn't what I asked for, dumbass. Pay attention.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
Materials Saftey and Data Sheet for Squalene
I see something of a discrepancy here.
In fact squalene as it turns out is a natural product produced by humans in the liver as a chemical precursor to steroids, and is used in cosmetics. Not to mention the fact that Gulf war Anthrac Vaccines contained no squalene.
And that's without going into the fact that on average humans have 250 ppb of Squalene in their blood stream.
Squalene in Vaccines
FDAInfo on Squalene
Not to mention the fact that there's at least one study that suggests that consumption of Squalene may help to control hypertension. LAlso, you're obviously unaware that you can purchase Shark Squalene from Health Shops
Something of a large discrepancy.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features...and-the-elderlyMost H1N1 cases are occurring in younger people. "It appears that older persons, who have been exposed multiple times in their life time with various flu outbreaks, may have residual immunity of which some of it is against this H1N1 flu strain," Yoshikawa tells WebMD.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-N...1-flu-CDC-tests
QUOTE
CDC researchers combined the new H1N1 swine flu virus with samples taken from healthy people in the U.S. and Europe before the new flu surfaced. They then measured antibodies that defend against infection. 30% of samples from people 60 and older showed significant protection against the new H1N1 swine flu virus compared to less than 10% of samples from younger adults.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9052104033.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| CDC researchers combined the new H1N1 swine flu virus with samples taken from healthy people in the U.S. and Europe before the new flu surfaced. They then measured antibodies that defend against infection. 30% of samples from people 60 and older showed significant protection against the new H1N1 swine flu virus compared to less than 10% of samples from younger adults. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9052104033.htmlScientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced yesterday that a study using stored blood samples found that one-third of people older than 60 have antibodies that might protect them from infection with the new virus. If further research is able to better define who has partial immunity, those people might need only one dose of vaccine, not two.
It must really suck to be you when your best chance of winning an argument lies in quoting dangerous and ignorant claims by retards who haven't got the common sense to think for themselves or even look something up. It's funny to watch you desperately grasp at straws in a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your own dishonesty and stupidity, and in the end only manage to evince your dishonesty and stupidity further.
Oh, by the way, evidence of the supposed dangers of this vaccine isn't what I asked for, dumbass. Pay attention.
Wow, how ignorant can you be? Who do you think you are to think you have a better expertise (or any kind of expertise) than someone with not only enough years to be an MD but retired to boot. You seriously don't have a clue. You are an absolute crank of the worst sort. A hypocritical kind because you constantly call others that. You're a crank simply for pretending to have authoritative knowledge about the subject matter. I've provided link after link, reference after reference to back my statements just to have you go on and on off track about the definition of words which is nothing but hair splitting. If it were a certain other few or even me doing what you are here and now it would have been met with suspensions to say the least.
Case in point.
Stereotypically one would find physicists on a physics forum just as stereotypically one would find parents on a parenting forum. Who's to say what the parent's field of expertise is? Certainly not you regardless of your bold attempt to. Another fine point of your ignorance.
QUOTE
I have more medical expertise than the person who wrote that.
Case in point.
Stereotypically one would find physicists on a physics forum just as stereotypically one would find parents on a parenting forum. Who's to say what the parent's field of expertise is? Certainly not you regardless of your bold attempt to. Another fine point of your ignorance.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 2 2009, 10:01 AM)
Wow, how ignorant can you be? Who do you think you are to think you have a better expertise (or any kind of expertise) than someone with not only enough years to be an MD but retired to boot. You seriously don't have a clue. You are an absolute crank of the worst sort. A hypocritical kind because you constantly call others that. You're a crank simply for pretending to have authoritative knowledge about the subject matter. I've provided link after link, reference after reference to back my statements just to have you go on and on off track about the definition of words which is nothing but hair splitting. If it were a certain other few or even me doing what you are here and now it would have been met with suspensions to say the least.
Despite the fact that you are pushing a debunked, crackpot POV, you apparently can't tell the difference between a legitimate source and a crackpot one. The internet is unique in its ability to reinforce any POV, no matter how insane. The fact that you can find "articles" that agree with you means nothing. You are pushing nothing more than superstition, paranoia and prejudice.
Despite the fact that you are pushing a debunked, crackpot POV, you apparently can't tell the difference between a legitimate source and a crackpot one. The internet is unique in its ability to reinforce any POV, no matter how insane. The fact that you can find "articles" that agree with you means nothing. You are pushing nothing more than superstition, paranoia and prejudice.
All I see there is...
\o\ \o/ /o/
\o\ \o/ /o/
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 2 2009, 09:01 AM)
Wow, how ignorant can you be? Who do you think you are to think you have a better expertise (or any kind of expertise) than someone with not only enough years to be an MD but retired to boot. You seriously don't have a clue. You are an absolute crank of the worst sort. A hypocritical kind because you constantly call others that. You're a crank simply for pretending to have authoritative knowledge about the subject matter. I've provided link after link, reference after reference to back my statements just to have you go on and on off track about the definition of words which is nothing but hair splitting. If it were a certain other few or even me doing what you are here and now it would have been met with suspensions to say the least.
Wow. I'm a little flattered that you think I have an article pending publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, and that you think I'm somehow behind every source I gave in that last post. Flattered, but disturbed.
You really think you've provided "link after link" and "reference after reference" to support this claim? That's delusional. You've provided one link and one uncredited quote. The link is to a website operated by a retired doctor who espouses non-factual views about medicine, and the quote is purportedly from some member of a parenting forum, who espouses non-factual views about H1N1/09.
I, on the other hand, have provided a link to an article pending publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, a well-referenced claim on wikipedia, the CDC's position on the vaccine and quotes from 3 different doctors citing a well-known study which contradicts one of your claims, one of which is contained on WebMD.com.
And of course, naturally you'd claim that all I'm talking about is the definition of "natural," because it's too much offense for you to acknowledge anything else I've said.
Why don't we just get back to you arguing that the Jazz minor and the Melodic minor are the same thing, while asserting that they're not and that you're not claiming they are?
Wow. I'm a little flattered that you think I have an article pending publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, and that you think I'm somehow behind every source I gave in that last post. Flattered, but disturbed.
You really think you've provided "link after link" and "reference after reference" to support this claim? That's delusional. You've provided one link and one uncredited quote. The link is to a website operated by a retired doctor who espouses non-factual views about medicine, and the quote is purportedly from some member of a parenting forum, who espouses non-factual views about H1N1/09.
I, on the other hand, have provided a link to an article pending publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, a well-referenced claim on wikipedia, the CDC's position on the vaccine and quotes from 3 different doctors citing a well-known study which contradicts one of your claims, one of which is contained on WebMD.com.
And of course, naturally you'd claim that all I'm talking about is the definition of "natural," because it's too much offense for you to acknowledge anything else I've said.
QUOTE
All I see there is...
Yet again, you dismiss a factual claim without bothering to so much as provide a reason why, Liu. Why don't we just get back to you arguing that the Jazz minor and the Melodic minor are the same thing, while asserting that they're not and that you're not claiming they are?
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 2 2009, 02:01 PM)
Wow, how ignorant can you be? Who do you think you are to think you have a better expertise (or any kind of expertise) than someone with not only enough years to be an MD but retired to boot. You seriously don't have a clue. You are an absolute crank of the worst sort. A hypocritical kind because you constantly call others that. You're a crank simply for pretending to have authoritative knowledge about the subject matter. I've provided link after link, reference after reference to back my statements just to have you go on and on off track about the definition of words which is nothing but hair splitting. If it were a certain other few or even me doing what you are here and now it would have been met with suspensions to say the least.
Case in point.
Stereotypically one would find physicists on a physics forum just as stereotypically one would find parents on a parenting forum. Who's to say what the parent's field of expertise is? Certainly not you regardless of your bold attempt to. Another fine point of your ignorance.
I agree with H20
Case in point.
Stereotypically one would find physicists on a physics forum just as stereotypically one would find parents on a parenting forum. Who's to say what the parent's field of expertise is? Certainly not you regardless of your bold attempt to. Another fine point of your ignorance.
I agree with H20
QUOTE (giuseppe+Nov 11 2009, 03:03 PM)
I agree with H20
Of course you do. I've yet to see a crappy argument for a factually inaccurate claim you didn't support.
Of course you do. I've yet to see a crappy argument for a factually inaccurate claim you didn't support.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 1 2009, 11:01 AM)
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
Click on Swine Flu Data
The whole thing is good but this particular ingredient stands out..
QUOTE
Squalene caused severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4). Squalene in
humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune
responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune
responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
Materials Saftey and Data Sheet for Squalene
I see something of a discrepancy here.
In fact squalene as it turns out is a natural product produced by humans in the liver as a chemical precursor to steroids, and is used in cosmetics. Not to mention the fact that Gulf war Anthrac Vaccines contained no squalene.
And that's without going into the fact that on average humans have 250 ppb of Squalene in their blood stream.
Squalene in Vaccines
FDAInfo on Squalene
Not to mention the fact that there's at least one study that suggests that consumption of Squalene may help to control hypertension. LAlso, you're obviously unaware that you can purchase Shark Squalene from Health Shops
Something of a large discrepancy.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 12 2009, 05:23 PM)
I see something of a discrepancy here.
Be careful Trippy. According to H20, by pointing out that the vast majority of experts disagree with his preferred expert, you are claiming to have more expertise than an MD with years of experience.
H20 likes to believe that anyone who offers sources which contradict him must necessarily be the author of those sources.
Be careful Trippy. According to H20, by pointing out that the vast majority of experts disagree with his preferred expert, you are claiming to have more expertise than an MD with years of experience.
H20 likes to believe that anyone who offers sources which contradict him must necessarily be the author of those sources.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 14 2009, 06:10 AM)
Be careful Trippy. According to H20, by pointing out that the vast majority of experts disagree with his preferred expert, you are claiming to have more expertise than an MD with years of experience.
H20 likes to believe that anyone who offers sources which contradict him must necessarily be the author of those sources.
I only wish I worked in the Chemistry Department at Oxford University.
Besides, I'm somewhat mystified as to how someone could possibly believe that something that's normally present in the bloodstream at levels of 200ppb, and synthesized in the Liver, is dangerous at levels of 20ppb.
H20 likes to believe that anyone who offers sources which contradict him must necessarily be the author of those sources.
I only wish I worked in the Chemistry Department at Oxford University.
Besides, I'm somewhat mystified as to how someone could possibly believe that something that's normally present in the bloodstream at levels of 200ppb, and synthesized in the Liver, is dangerous at levels of 20ppb.
Thanks to m o r o n s anti-vaccine nuts who spread lies and anti-scientific doubts, there was a 2009 mumps outbreak. About 10% get meningitis, about 10% get swollen testes and may suffer fertility problems, go deaf, etc.
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatundergrou...mumps_redux.php
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatundergrou...mumps_redux.php
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 14 2009, 12:04 PM)
Thanks to m o r o n s anti-vaccine nuts who spread lies and anti-scientific doubts, there was a 2009 mumps outbreak. About 10% get meningitis, about 10% get swollen testes and may suffer fertility problems, go deaf, etc.
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatundergrou...mumps_redux.php
Darwinism in action?
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatundergrou...mumps_redux.php
Darwinism in action?
The article seems to imply that the out break, although kept from spreading due to vaccines, still occurred in the face of vaccines. Basically people who have received the vaccine still got infected. Particularly the part...
Besides, I'm somewhat mystified as to how someone could possibly believe that something that's normally present in the bloodstream at levels of 200ppb, and synthesized in the Liver, is dangerous at levels of 20ppb.
Taken from the same link in which you got the 200ppb.
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
QUOTE
But it would be good to know how these outbreaks occur. Do we need to consider a third dose of vaccine either generally or in certain communities? Do we need to limit contact with countries with high rates of disease?
What is clear is the contrast between these outbreaks and the epidemics of mumps in the pre-vaccine era. It is also clear that vaccination is imperfect, but still significantly better than allowing epidemic mumps.
What is clear is the contrast between these outbreaks and the epidemics of mumps in the pre-vaccine era. It is also clear that vaccination is imperfect, but still significantly better than allowing epidemic mumps.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But it would be good to know how these outbreaks occur. Do we need to consider a third dose of vaccine either generally or in certain communities? Do we need to limit contact with countries with high rates of disease? What is clear is the contrast between these outbreaks and the epidemics of mumps in the pre-vaccine era. It is also clear that vaccination is imperfect, but still significantly better than allowing epidemic mumps. |
Besides, I'm somewhat mystified as to how someone could possibly believe that something that's normally present in the bloodstream at levels of 200ppb, and synthesized in the Liver, is dangerous at levels of 20ppb.
Taken from the same link in which you got the 200ppb.
QUOTE
The relevance of findings in susceptible animal species to humans is unclear (IONSox, 1999; Kuroda et al,
2004).
Based on other research, it is clear that whether squaiene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions
of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (8enisek et al, 2904).
2004).
Based on other research, it is clear that whether squaiene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions
of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (8enisek et al, 2904).
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
Your reading skills are poor. The quoted passage does not imply what you infer, because you are working from your preconceptions.
Because the mumps vaccine is estimated independently at only 76%--95%, you don't get herd immunity unless nearly everyone gets vaccinated. So a combination of an outbreak of mumps in the UK ( "Mumps virus classified as genotype G was identified from multiple specimens sent to CDC, consistent with the probable importation of mumps into Sullivan County from the ongoing mumps outbreak in the United Kingdom."), the existence of communities with anti-vaccine acceptance ("The index patient was a boy aged 11 years who had returned on June 17 from the United Kingdom, where a mumps outbreak is ongoing with approximately 4,000 cases, primarily in unvaccinated young adults in the general population." "During June 28--October 30, five cases outside the affected religious community were reported.") , and the occasional failure of the vaccine to protect.
Because the mumps vaccine is estimated independently at only 76%--95%, you don't get herd immunity unless nearly everyone gets vaccinated. So a combination of an outbreak of mumps in the UK ( "Mumps virus classified as genotype G was identified from multiple specimens sent to CDC, consistent with the probable importation of mumps into Sullivan County from the ongoing mumps outbreak in the United Kingdom."), the existence of communities with anti-vaccine acceptance ("The index patient was a boy aged 11 years who had returned on June 17 from the United Kingdom, where a mumps outbreak is ongoing with approximately 4,000 cases, primarily in unvaccinated young adults in the general population." "During June 28--October 30, five cases outside the affected religious community were reported.") , and the occasional failure of the vaccine to protect.
Are you serious?
I can't believe I need to break it down.
This implies that they don't know. So the question is "how are these outbreaks occurring?"
This implies that they don't know. So the question is "how are these outbreaks occurring?"
Do we need to consider a third dose of vaccine either generally or in certain communities?
Such a question implies that the two doses are NOT enough. Not enough to what? Be effective? Judging by the first statement that is the case. Two doses are not enough to be effective.
Why limit exposure? Aren't the two doses enough? Guess not.
Why limit exposure? Aren't the two doses enough? Guess not.
It is also clear that vaccination is imperfect, but still significantly better than allowing epidemic mumps.
Again, vaccination is imperfect? How is it imperfect? Judging by everything said before, looks like it's imperfect because you can still get infected.
I can't believe I need to break it down.
QUOTE
But it would be good to know how these outbreaks occur.
This implies that they don't know. So the question is "how are these outbreaks occurring?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But it would be good to know how these outbreaks occur. |
This implies that they don't know. So the question is "how are these outbreaks occurring?"
Do we need to consider a third dose of vaccine either generally or in certain communities?
Such a question implies that the two doses are NOT enough. Not enough to what? Be effective? Judging by the first statement that is the case. Two doses are not enough to be effective.
QUOTE
Do we need to limit contact with countries with high rates of disease?
Why limit exposure? Aren't the two doses enough? Guess not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do we need to limit contact with countries with high rates of disease? |
Why limit exposure? Aren't the two doses enough? Guess not.
It is also clear that vaccination is imperfect, but still significantly better than allowing epidemic mumps.
Again, vaccination is imperfect? How is it imperfect? Judging by everything said before, looks like it's imperfect because you can still get infected.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 16 2009, 01:53 PM)
The article seems to imply that the out break, although kept from spreading due to vaccines, still occurred in the face of vaccines. Basically people who have received the vaccine still got infected. Particularly the part...
I suppose a vaccine would have to be 100% effective before it would be worth distributing in your view?
QUOTE
Taken from the same link in which you got the 200ppb.
Which doesn't contradict anything Trippy said. In fact, it supports his assertions.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Taken from the same link in which you got the 200ppb. |
Which doesn't contradict anything Trippy said. In fact, it supports his assertions.
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
Nobody said or implied that it was, nor does anything Trippy said depend on it being so.
Yes, you can get a vaccine and still get infected. But it's not very likely, and it's less likely than if you don't get the vaccine. Here's another quote from the article, from the very same paragraph from which you cherry picked a few sentences:
QUOTE
Are you serious?
I can't believe I need to break it down.
Your argument rests entirely on the assumption that a vaccine which isn't 100% effective is completely worthless. That's patently untrue, so you're wrong no matter how you twist the meaning of any quote which you think might support you.I can't believe I need to break it down.
Yes, you can get a vaccine and still get infected. But it's not very likely, and it's less likely than if you don't get the vaccine. Here's another quote from the article, from the very same paragraph from which you cherry picked a few sentences:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you serious? I can't believe I need to break it down. |
Your argument rests entirely on the assumption that a vaccine which isn't 100% effective is completely worthless. That's patently untrue, so you're wrong no matter how you twist the meaning of any quote which you think might support you.
Yes, you can get a vaccine and still get infected. But it's not very likely, and it's less likely than if you don't get the vaccine. Here's another quote from the article, from the very same paragraph from which you cherry picked a few sentences: What is not in question is the benefits of vaccination.
So explain to me again how an article which directly and unambiguously states that vaccination is valuable is somehow questioning the value of vaccinations?
EDIT: I just saw your feedback. You're a lying sack of crap, you know that?
Please quote to me where you responded to me pointing out that purposefully allowing people to die simply because they lack a certain gene is an evil act. Also point out where you've responded to me pointing out that I am not the author of the sources which disagree with your favorite 'expert', where you responded to me pointing out that I don't dismiss evidence without a good reason.
Come on, liar. Back up your claims with some evidence, you dishonest little prick.
I bet you won't even try.
Yes, you can get a vaccine and still get infected. But it's not very likely, and it's less likely than if you don't get the vaccine. Here's another quote from the article, from the very same paragraph from which you cherry picked a few sentences: What is not in question is the benefits of vaccination.
So explain to me again how an article which directly and unambiguously states that vaccination is valuable is somehow questioning the value of vaccinations?
EDIT: I just saw your feedback. You're a lying sack of crap, you know that?
Please quote to me where you responded to me pointing out that purposefully allowing people to die simply because they lack a certain gene is an evil act. Also point out where you've responded to me pointing out that I am not the author of the sources which disagree with your favorite 'expert', where you responded to me pointing out that I don't dismiss evidence without a good reason.
Come on, liar. Back up your claims with some evidence, you dishonest little prick.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 17 2009, 07:53 AM)
Taken from the same link in which you got the 200ppb.
Strawman, of sorts.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are claiming that something is dangerous when present in the blood stream, or introduced into the blood stream at levels of 20 ppb, when that thing is already present in the blood stream at 200ppb.
The obvious conclusion being that the human body has adapted a tolerance to having ten times the amount that you're claiming is injurious when introduced to the blood stream, in the blood stream.
Strawman, of sorts.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are claiming that something is dangerous when present in the blood stream, or introduced into the blood stream at levels of 20 ppb, when that thing is already present in the blood stream at 200ppb.
The obvious conclusion being that the human body has adapted a tolerance to having ten times the amount that you're claiming is injurious when introduced to the blood stream, in the blood stream.
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
Show me again where I said it was?
Oh waaaaaaaait, that's right, I didn't - I was merely addressing the single ingredient that YOUR OWN SOURCE singled out in this post.
But, if you insist on being a prat about it.
Tween 80 is also known as Polysorbate 80, is often used in Ice creams, is approved for use in foods and is used an emulsifier in a number of other drugs, including amiodarone.
The only health effects that have ever been raised in regards to Tween 80 are based around a SINGLE study done in 2007, that lead to some potential concerns over infertility. The rates were administered with nearly 17 ml/kg bw/day (i'll let you figure out how many injections per day that is equivalent to, or how many litres of ice cream you'd need to eat to find a similar effect).
Span 85 is also known as Sorbitan Trioleate, it is used in cosmetics, is approved in the EU for vetinary applications in animals destined for the table, and there appear to have been two studies done that suggest at moderate to high doses doses it may be an irritant to the eyes and hands, and may have some efefcts on blood, although it is classified as "not expected to be potentially toxic or harmful" on the Environmental Canada Domestic Substance List, and is a widely used anti foaming agent. According to the EPA, the LD50 for oral administration for sorbitan monooleate was in excess of 39.8 g/kg, and 3M uses Sorbitan Trioleate in Asthma Medication. (Toxicicity information available from International Journal of Toxicology Volume 4, Issue 3.
Here we have a Patent that lists Sorbitan Trioleate as one of several esters used for oil dispersal, and then goes on to say "The esters to be used in the compositions of the invention have no acute toxicity (LD50 > 2000)..." And finally, according to this link (Which produced an error when I tried it a second time) the lowest LD50 in the study that I mentioned was 31 g/kg.
So, what do we have in this 'dangerous' vaccine?
A Chemical that is produced naturally in the human liver, and is ordinarily present in the bloodstream at levels 10 times higher than what we're led to believe is injurious.
A Chemical that is used in foods, and has produced some injurious effects in rates at 17 ml/kg bw/day (an 80kg man would need to drink just under 5.5 metric cups of the pure substance each day to see any ill health effects).
A Chemical that has an LD50 of more than 31g/kg (an 80 kg man would have to eat 5.5lbs of the substance to have a 50% chance of death), but is used in a large number of drugs, including asthma inhalers, and cosmetics.
And I'm supposed to be concerned about the dose of these substances that I'm getting from a 0.5ml flu jab?
Yeah, right.
QUOTE
The relevance of findings in susceptible animal species to humans is unclear (IONSox, 1999; Kuroda et al,
2004).
Based on other research, it is clear that whether squaiene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions
of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (8enisek et al, 2904).
2004).
Based on other research, it is clear that whether squaiene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions
of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (8enisek et al, 2904).
Strawman, of sorts.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are claiming that something is dangerous when present in the blood stream, or introduced into the blood stream at levels of 20 ppb, when that thing is already present in the blood stream at 200ppb.
The obvious conclusion being that the human body has adapted a tolerance to having ten times the amount that you're claiming is injurious when introduced to the blood stream, in the blood stream.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The relevance of findings in susceptible animal species to humans is unclear (IONSox, 1999; Kuroda et al, 2004). Based on other research, it is clear that whether squaiene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (8enisek et al, 2904). |
Strawman, of sorts.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are claiming that something is dangerous when present in the blood stream, or introduced into the blood stream at levels of 20 ppb, when that thing is already present in the blood stream at 200ppb.
The obvious conclusion being that the human body has adapted a tolerance to having ten times the amount that you're claiming is injurious when introduced to the blood stream, in the blood stream.
Also MF59 isn't just squalene.
Show me again where I said it was?
Oh waaaaaaaait, that's right, I didn't - I was merely addressing the single ingredient that YOUR OWN SOURCE singled out in this post.
But, if you insist on being a prat about it.
Tween 80 is also known as Polysorbate 80, is often used in Ice creams, is approved for use in foods and is used an emulsifier in a number of other drugs, including amiodarone.
The only health effects that have ever been raised in regards to Tween 80 are based around a SINGLE study done in 2007, that lead to some potential concerns over infertility. The rates were administered with nearly 17 ml/kg bw/day (i'll let you figure out how many injections per day that is equivalent to, or how many litres of ice cream you'd need to eat to find a similar effect).
Span 85 is also known as Sorbitan Trioleate, it is used in cosmetics, is approved in the EU for vetinary applications in animals destined for the table, and there appear to have been two studies done that suggest at moderate to high doses doses it may be an irritant to the eyes and hands, and may have some efefcts on blood, although it is classified as "not expected to be potentially toxic or harmful" on the Environmental Canada Domestic Substance List, and is a widely used anti foaming agent. According to the EPA, the LD50 for oral administration for sorbitan monooleate was in excess of 39.8 g/kg, and 3M uses Sorbitan Trioleate in Asthma Medication. (Toxicicity information available from International Journal of Toxicology Volume 4, Issue 3.
Here we have a Patent that lists Sorbitan Trioleate as one of several esters used for oil dispersal, and then goes on to say "The esters to be used in the compositions of the invention have no acute toxicity (LD50 > 2000)..." And finally, according to this link (Which produced an error when I tried it a second time) the lowest LD50 in the study that I mentioned was 31 g/kg.
So, what do we have in this 'dangerous' vaccine?
A Chemical that is produced naturally in the human liver, and is ordinarily present in the bloodstream at levels 10 times higher than what we're led to believe is injurious.
A Chemical that is used in foods, and has produced some injurious effects in rates at 17 ml/kg bw/day (an 80kg man would need to drink just under 5.5 metric cups of the pure substance each day to see any ill health effects).
A Chemical that has an LD50 of more than 31g/kg (an 80 kg man would have to eat 5.5lbs of the substance to have a 50% chance of death), but is used in a large number of drugs, including asthma inhalers, and cosmetics.
And I'm supposed to be concerned about the dose of these substances that I'm getting from a 0.5ml flu jab?
Yeah, right.
Flu vaccines not harmful?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Nov 16 2009, 10:36 PM)
Flu vaccines not harmful?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
This is an article about what a woman went through, not an article about the safety of the flu vaccine. Keep that in mind when reading it.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
This is an article about what a woman went through, not an article about the safety of the flu vaccine. Keep that in mind when reading it.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Nov 17 2009, 04:36 PM)
Flu vaccines not harmful?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
Nobody here is claiming that the flue vaccines are risk free. Every vaccine has a small risk of adverse reactions attached to it.
It doesn't matter how innocuous the chemical is, there is always a small percentage of the population that for whatever reason will have an adverse reaction to it no matter how small the dose.
It is, however the case that the risk of the adverse reaction to the vaccine is less than the adverse reaction to the disease itself.
Your argument is at best misleading, but most accurately dishonest.
I could, in a similar light, write, or even find a human interest article about how someone who suffered hydrogen monoxide toxicity (through inhalation), and then expound at great lengths on how many people are killed each year by hydrogen monoxide inhalation, and recommend that all applications of hydrogen monoxide use, including the inhalation of it for therapeutic purposes, should be banned.
But to do so would, at best be disingenous, and bordering on deliberate dishonesty.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
Nobody here is claiming that the flue vaccines are risk free. Every vaccine has a small risk of adverse reactions attached to it.
It doesn't matter how innocuous the chemical is, there is always a small percentage of the population that for whatever reason will have an adverse reaction to it no matter how small the dose.
It is, however the case that the risk of the adverse reaction to the vaccine is less than the adverse reaction to the disease itself.
Your argument is at best misleading, but most accurately dishonest.
I could, in a similar light, write, or even find a human interest article about how someone who suffered hydrogen monoxide toxicity (through inhalation), and then expound at great lengths on how many people are killed each year by hydrogen monoxide inhalation, and recommend that all applications of hydrogen monoxide use, including the inhalation of it for therapeutic purposes, should be banned.
But to do so would, at best be disingenous, and bordering on deliberate dishonesty.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Nov 17 2009, 03:36 AM)
Flu vaccines not harmful?
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
Literally: Anti-vaccine hysteria.
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
Literally: Anti-vaccine hysteria.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 7 2009, 01:05 AM)
H1N1 is flu. But the worldwide death toll is going to be comparable to a war. Therefore, it is not unjustified to take steps to reduce that death toll. And, for many people, the vaccine is going to a better choice than gambling on getting the flu or not. Marginally better, but better and the price is right (free for at-risk populations in many areas).
And Desiree Jennings' story has nothing in it to change that equation.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/...port_been_f.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/...nings_cured.php
added:
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-parentin...ngss-story.html
And Desiree Jennings' story has nothing in it to change that equation.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/...port_been_f.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/...nings_cured.php
added:
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-parentin...ngss-story.html
Awesome article:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...ng_side_effects
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...ng_side_effects
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 17 2009, 02:20 AM)
Literally: Anti-vaccine hysteria.
I don't think it is. The author starts out in the first sentence by referring to the reaction the woman had as "...a very rare side effect..." Finally, the second to last paragraph is about the rarity of such reactions.
What I think it is is an article about what one woman went through after receiving her flu vaccine, which -given the current existence of vociferous anti-vaccination movements- doesn't do nearly enough to dispel any fears about the vaccine it might create. As I said before, the article is about the woman's experience, not the safety of the flu vaccine, although that is a closely related subject. Whether or not the vaccine caused this disorder is not immediately made clear in the article, however the reported opinions of at least two doctors are that is likely is. I've seen other articles (such as the links you quoted in this post) which indicate otherwise, but to me, that's incidental. The article is about what the woman went through, not what caused it (which only gets mentioned in a single sentence).
I think the author is negligent, not fear-mongering. That being said, I think the authors negligence is almost as dangerous as fear-mongering.
As a final note: is Ms. Jennings' case being used by fear-mongering anti-vaccination idiots? Absolutely.
I've found dozens of sites and forums containing warnings that Ms. Jennings' condition is far more common than "they" want you to believe, and lots of dire implications about children being turned into vegetables by this vaccine, with her as an example. I just don't think this particular article is one of them.
I don't think it is. The author starts out in the first sentence by referring to the reaction the woman had as "...a very rare side effect..." Finally, the second to last paragraph is about the rarity of such reactions.
What I think it is is an article about what one woman went through after receiving her flu vaccine, which -given the current existence of vociferous anti-vaccination movements- doesn't do nearly enough to dispel any fears about the vaccine it might create. As I said before, the article is about the woman's experience, not the safety of the flu vaccine, although that is a closely related subject. Whether or not the vaccine caused this disorder is not immediately made clear in the article, however the reported opinions of at least two doctors are that is likely is. I've seen other articles (such as the links you quoted in this post) which indicate otherwise, but to me, that's incidental. The article is about what the woman went through, not what caused it (which only gets mentioned in a single sentence).
I think the author is negligent, not fear-mongering. That being said, I think the authors negligence is almost as dangerous as fear-mongering.
As a final note: is Ms. Jennings' case being used by fear-mongering anti-vaccination idiots? Absolutely.
I've found dozens of sites and forums containing warnings that Ms. Jennings' condition is far more common than "they" want you to believe, and lots of dire implications about children being turned into vegetables by this vaccine, with her as an example. I just don't think this particular article is one of them.
Quote by H2O
Several tens of thousands die each year from this little nothing > parents' children and childrens' loving grandparents, people at high risk that weren't vaccinated. For the risk of a tiny fraction of a few you would cut off the arm to save the finger, but these are real lives at stake not limbs. Look at the statistics, they're there to see, and have some compassion. Last year the vaccine was 75% effective. H1N1 vaccine can be taken in addition to regular seasonal vaccine safely. H2O and similar, if you have little ones or elderly ones, please read much more about this subject. That's a reasonable suggestion.
QUOTE
As with the regular flu it will mutate (probably has already) but just like the regular flu, the H1N1 will just become another one of the many types of "regular flu". Like any virus it will run it's cycle, thin out the Earth's population and be then of as nothing more than a seasonal thing.
Several tens of thousands die each year from this little nothing > parents' children and childrens' loving grandparents, people at high risk that weren't vaccinated. For the risk of a tiny fraction of a few you would cut off the arm to save the finger, but these are real lives at stake not limbs. Look at the statistics, they're there to see, and have some compassion. Last year the vaccine was 75% effective. H1N1 vaccine can be taken in addition to regular seasonal vaccine safely. H2O and similar, if you have little ones or elderly ones, please read much more about this subject. That's a reasonable suggestion.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Nov 16 2009, 10:36 PM)
Flu vaccines not harmful?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
YES
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1152
Well, turns out that at the time H1N1 first started showing up, my daughter (18 mo old at the time) came down with a fever, clammy skin, shakes and what appeared to be body aches (the symptoms of a bad case of the flu). The doctor said she had "a virus" (well no s**t), most likely the flu and suggested the usual home stuff (rest, liquids, etc.). Next day the symptoms showed signs of going away but the day after that she seemed to have developed a flemmy cough and raspy breathing and the fever came back. This time we went to a different hospital and after getting checked out, pneumonia.
More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary.
Well, turns out that at the time H1N1 first started showing up, my daughter (18 mo old at the time) came down with a fever, clammy skin, shakes and what appeared to be body aches (the symptoms of a bad case of the flu). The doctor said she had "a virus" (well no s**t), most likely the flu and suggested the usual home stuff (rest, liquids, etc.). Next day the symptoms showed signs of going away but the day after that she seemed to have developed a flemmy cough and raspy breathing and the fever came back. This time we went to a different hospital and after getting checked out, pneumonia.
More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary.
Several tens of thousands die each year from this little nothing > parents' children and childrens' loving grandparents, people at high risk that weren't vaccinated.
Several tens of thousands die each year from all sorts of things. Does that mean we should heavily pad the walls and floor of our houses and never leave it?
Real hysteria is the people who are going completely overboard with who qualifies to get it with the shortage (here in Canada) like those getting bent out of shape because those with the money and use private clinics are getting it simply because they have enough to give to all their clients. There is also those who are will to wait hours upon hours in line for a vaccine but wouldn't even think twice about waiting in line for the seasonal vaccine.
You have to understand that conspiracy theorists have no concept of a government "for the people, by the people." To them, the government is the sinister others whom mankind has been fearful of since we first started developed language. They don't understand that the government is made of of people who -like them- have families, friends, hobbies, political views, fears, jobs and plans for the future. They're not real people, due to their involvement in the government.
Hey now~ don't pigeon-hole us conspiracy theorists into such a teensy little package....Some of us think that, the goverment is made up of crass, careless, individuals who have forgotten the many ideals they first went into politics for, those who actually began the journey with ideals (to be there FOR THE PEOPLE), and we know that many are working tirelessly to ACTUALLY BE THERE, FOR THE PEOPLE of AMERICA.
We just know who's winning the game, at this juncture, and sometimes we wish it was the latter crew.
I actually thought that conspiracy theorists were afraid that the H1N1 vaccination might be a ruse for injecting the public with nano~ tracking devises for the general populous....hmmm....maybe they did'nt think of that one yet! But I was just guessing at what they feared, i didn't care to read and have been trying to get my daughter & I vaccinated, to no avail.
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers.
Please, tell me that you have any children, that you won't mind losing? Since it will be such a small dent in the population.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/101309_w...action_dystonia
Anti-Vaccine paranoia?
YES
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1152
QUOTE
The panic over the vaccine, however, is entirely manufactured, primarily by dedicated conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccinationists, and then aided by irresponsible media. There have been two stories in particular about alleged severe reactions following vaccines recently, one dealing with the HPV vaccine and the recent cased of what is being called dystonia following the seasonal flu vaccine. The young girl who died within hours of getting the HPV vaccine was found to have a heart defect, and her death had nothing to do with the vaccine, so that story was rather short-lived.
The new case making the rounds, however, appears to have some legs. It is getting international news attention, and I am being flooded with e-mail requests to analyze the case.
This is the story of Desiree Jennings, who is a 28 year old cheerleader who was apparently healthy until August when she received the seasonal flu vaccine. Ten days later she developed a severe respiratory illness, probably the flu, requiring hospitalization. She then developed an apparent neurological reaction in which she has difficulty speaking and walking, with involuntary muscle contractions and contortions. Her symptoms (including speech) are relieved, however, by walking backwards or by running. She also seems to have attacks of muscle contortions.
News reports are presenting her story as a rare vaccine reaction. Take a look at the video of her movements on this news report also.
This case, of course, has been immediately picked up by the anti-vaccine crowd. Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccine organization, wasted no time in exploiting this poor girl for their own agenda. She is now the latest poster child in the war against vaccines.
The media is largely covered in fail over their reporting of this case. They failed to ask basic journalistic questions – was the illness Jennings suffered from due to the vaccine, was it confirmed as the flu, and was it the strain from the vaccine, was the incubation period compatible with a vaccine-induced flu, did she get the live-virus version of the vaccine, does she really have dystonia, has that diagnosis been verified, are their other possibilities, and what is the plausibility that it was caused by the vaccine?
None of these basic questions are addressed in the news reports – instead we are given an emotional report of a “one in a million” (a figure apparently pulled out of someone’s butt) vaccine reaction. Her episodes are called “seizures” when they are almost certainly not seizures. Her condition has also been called permanent and irreversible – without any justification.
Normally I try to refrain from making medical diagnoses in public cases – but Jennings has now inserted herself in to the anti-vaccine movement, and is using her own case to “warn about the dangers of vaccines.” To mitigate the damage to public health brought about by misinformation in this case, I think it is necessary to provide some expert opinion.
The movements and symptoms that Ms. Jennings displays on the public videos I have seen (linked to above) are not compatible with the diagnosis of dystonia, or any other movement disorder. Dystonia is one type of involuntary contraction of muscles. It can be reduced or exacerbated by certain movements or positions, and there are “task specific” dystonia, such as writer’s cramp, that come out only with certain activity. Jennings does not display the type of movements that are consistent with dystonia. Her speech and movement are, however, very suggestive of a psychogenic disorder.
This also seems to be the consensus opinion of experts who have viewed this case. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation had this to say about the case:
Arthur
The new case making the rounds, however, appears to have some legs. It is getting international news attention, and I am being flooded with e-mail requests to analyze the case.
This is the story of Desiree Jennings, who is a 28 year old cheerleader who was apparently healthy until August when she received the seasonal flu vaccine. Ten days later she developed a severe respiratory illness, probably the flu, requiring hospitalization. She then developed an apparent neurological reaction in which she has difficulty speaking and walking, with involuntary muscle contractions and contortions. Her symptoms (including speech) are relieved, however, by walking backwards or by running. She also seems to have attacks of muscle contortions.
News reports are presenting her story as a rare vaccine reaction. Take a look at the video of her movements on this news report also.
This case, of course, has been immediately picked up by the anti-vaccine crowd. Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccine organization, wasted no time in exploiting this poor girl for their own agenda. She is now the latest poster child in the war against vaccines.
The media is largely covered in fail over their reporting of this case. They failed to ask basic journalistic questions – was the illness Jennings suffered from due to the vaccine, was it confirmed as the flu, and was it the strain from the vaccine, was the incubation period compatible with a vaccine-induced flu, did she get the live-virus version of the vaccine, does she really have dystonia, has that diagnosis been verified, are their other possibilities, and what is the plausibility that it was caused by the vaccine?
None of these basic questions are addressed in the news reports – instead we are given an emotional report of a “one in a million” (a figure apparently pulled out of someone’s butt) vaccine reaction. Her episodes are called “seizures” when they are almost certainly not seizures. Her condition has also been called permanent and irreversible – without any justification.
Normally I try to refrain from making medical diagnoses in public cases – but Jennings has now inserted herself in to the anti-vaccine movement, and is using her own case to “warn about the dangers of vaccines.” To mitigate the damage to public health brought about by misinformation in this case, I think it is necessary to provide some expert opinion.
The movements and symptoms that Ms. Jennings displays on the public videos I have seen (linked to above) are not compatible with the diagnosis of dystonia, or any other movement disorder. Dystonia is one type of involuntary contraction of muscles. It can be reduced or exacerbated by certain movements or positions, and there are “task specific” dystonia, such as writer’s cramp, that come out only with certain activity. Jennings does not display the type of movements that are consistent with dystonia. Her speech and movement are, however, very suggestive of a psychogenic disorder.
This also seems to be the consensus opinion of experts who have viewed this case. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation had this to say about the case:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The panic over the vaccine, however, is entirely manufactured, primarily by dedicated conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccinationists, and then aided by irresponsible media. There have been two stories in particular about alleged severe reactions following vaccines recently, one dealing with the HPV vaccine and the recent cased of what is being called dystonia following the seasonal flu vaccine. The young girl who died within hours of getting the HPV vaccine was found to have a heart defect, and her death had nothing to do with the vaccine, so that story was rather short-lived. The new case making the rounds, however, appears to have some legs. It is getting international news attention, and I am being flooded with e-mail requests to analyze the case. This is the story of Desiree Jennings, who is a 28 year old cheerleader who was apparently healthy until August when she received the seasonal flu vaccine. Ten days later she developed a severe respiratory illness, probably the flu, requiring hospitalization. She then developed an apparent neurological reaction in which she has difficulty speaking and walking, with involuntary muscle contractions and contortions. Her symptoms (including speech) are relieved, however, by walking backwards or by running. She also seems to have attacks of muscle contortions. News reports are presenting her story as a rare vaccine reaction. Take a look at the video of her movements on this news report also. This case, of course, has been immediately picked up by the anti-vaccine crowd. Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccine organization, wasted no time in exploiting this poor girl for their own agenda. She is now the latest poster child in the war against vaccines. The media is largely covered in fail over their reporting of this case. They failed to ask basic journalistic questions – was the illness Jennings suffered from due to the vaccine, was it confirmed as the flu, and was it the strain from the vaccine, was the incubation period compatible with a vaccine-induced flu, did she get the live-virus version of the vaccine, does she really have dystonia, has that diagnosis been verified, are their other possibilities, and what is the plausibility that it was caused by the vaccine? None of these basic questions are addressed in the news reports – instead we are given an emotional report of a “one in a million” (a figure apparently pulled out of someone’s butt) vaccine reaction. Her episodes are called “seizures” when they are almost certainly not seizures. Her condition has also been called permanent and irreversible – without any justification. Normally I try to refrain from making medical diagnoses in public cases – but Jennings has now inserted herself in to the anti-vaccine movement, and is using her own case to “warn about the dangers of vaccines.” To mitigate the damage to public health brought about by misinformation in this case, I think it is necessary to provide some expert opinion. The movements and symptoms that Ms. Jennings displays on the public videos I have seen (linked to above) are not compatible with the diagnosis of dystonia, or any other movement disorder. Dystonia is one type of involuntary contraction of muscles. It can be reduced or exacerbated by certain movements or positions, and there are “task specific” dystonia, such as writer’s cramp, that come out only with certain activity. Jennings does not display the type of movements that are consistent with dystonia. Her speech and movement are, however, very suggestive of a psychogenic disorder. This also seems to be the consensus opinion of experts who have viewed this case. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation had this to say about the case: Because of the concern of individuals with dystonia as to whether or not to get a flu shot because of this reported case, we have sought the opinion of dystonia experts on this case. Based on the footage that has been shared with the public, it is their unanimous consensus that this case does not appear to be dystonia. The one news report that I saw that actually consulted an expert for their opinion was Fox News. Leigh Vinocur, and emergency room physician, was interviewed and relayed the opinion that the neurologists she consulted were of the opinion that Jennings’ symptoms were consistent with a psychogenic disorder. In other words – her symptoms are not neurological, they are psychological. This does not mean she has any insight or voluntary control over her symptoms – they are involuntary and “real” – just not neurological in origin. Symptoms such as this are not uncommon reactions to emotional stress in some individuals. Given the evidence presented, I think this is a reasonable opinion. Dr. Vinocur also points out that there are no reported cases of true dystonia resulting from the flu vaccine – this is not a known or established vaccine reaction. |
Arthur
I'll happily cure any ailment you have by pissing in your mouth. Seriously. And I only charge a hundred bucks a pop!
OMG Pants!!! If you wanna pee in my mouth then YOU should bring the dough along~ sheesh!
....and aren't you a happily married man???
Why are you offering to piss in peeps mouths!
I don't think your lady wud approve!
hahahahaha
OMG Pants!!! If you wanna pee in my mouth then YOU should bring the dough along~ sheesh!
....and aren't you a happily married man???
Why are you offering to piss in peeps mouths!
I don't think your lady wud approve!
hahahahaha
QUOTE
H2O and similar, if you have little ones or elderly ones, please read much more about this subject. That's a reasonable suggestion.
Well, turns out that at the time H1N1 first started showing up, my daughter (18 mo old at the time) came down with a fever, clammy skin, shakes and what appeared to be body aches (the symptoms of a bad case of the flu). The doctor said she had "a virus" (well no s**t), most likely the flu and suggested the usual home stuff (rest, liquids, etc.). Next day the symptoms showed signs of going away but the day after that she seemed to have developed a flemmy cough and raspy breathing and the fever came back. This time we went to a different hospital and after getting checked out, pneumonia.
More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| H2O and similar, if you have little ones or elderly ones, please read much more about this subject. That's a reasonable suggestion. |
Well, turns out that at the time H1N1 first started showing up, my daughter (18 mo old at the time) came down with a fever, clammy skin, shakes and what appeared to be body aches (the symptoms of a bad case of the flu). The doctor said she had "a virus" (well no s**t), most likely the flu and suggested the usual home stuff (rest, liquids, etc.). Next day the symptoms showed signs of going away but the day after that she seemed to have developed a flemmy cough and raspy breathing and the fever came back. This time we went to a different hospital and after getting checked out, pneumonia.
More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary.
Several tens of thousands die each year from this little nothing > parents' children and childrens' loving grandparents, people at high risk that weren't vaccinated.
Several tens of thousands die each year from all sorts of things. Does that mean we should heavily pad the walls and floor of our houses and never leave it?
Real hysteria is the people who are going completely overboard with who qualifies to get it with the shortage (here in Canada) like those getting bent out of shape because those with the money and use private clinics are getting it simply because they have enough to give to all their clients. There is also those who are will to wait hours upon hours in line for a vaccine but wouldn't even think twice about waiting in line for the seasonal vaccine.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 9 2009, 09:05 AM)
You have to understand that conspiracy theorists have no concept of a government "for the people, by the people." To them, the government is the sinister others whom mankind has been fearful of since we first started developed language. They don't understand that the government is made of of people who -like them- have families, friends, hobbies, political views, fears, jobs and plans for the future. They're not real people, due to their involvement in the government.
Hey now~ don't pigeon-hole us conspiracy theorists into such a teensy little package....Some of us think that, the goverment is made up of crass, careless, individuals who have forgotten the many ideals they first went into politics for, those who actually began the journey with ideals (to be there FOR THE PEOPLE), and we know that many are working tirelessly to ACTUALLY BE THERE, FOR THE PEOPLE of AMERICA.
We just know who's winning the game, at this juncture, and sometimes we wish it was the latter crew.
I actually thought that conspiracy theorists were afraid that the H1N1 vaccination might be a ruse for injecting the public with nano~ tracking devises for the general populous....hmmm....maybe they did'nt think of that one yet! But I was just guessing at what they feared, i didn't care to read and have been trying to get my daughter & I vaccinated, to no avail.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 04:28 AM)
Getting worked up over a natural born virus is stupid and pointless. It called the way the natural world works. It won't put extinct the human race, it barely puts a dent in our numbers.
Please, tell me that you have any children, that you won't mind losing? Since it will be such a small dent in the population.
From your other thread on conspiracy theorism, link (wikipedia article)
"Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology"
(Of course personally, I fit into this category EXCEPTING I do not want them removed from power, I want them acting with care~ a rather big differance)
Who else does one suppose is to blame, if blame need be placed?
Could it be that the starving, and unfortunate lower classes are to blame for not having the energy to begin to repair global social & political problems?
M'just sayin'
;~})
~If anyone should have the energy to even begin to repair problems, it must be the wealthy and powerful, they coming from thier spa treatments and fabulous foods, and vacations in exotic places, from their fine houses to their fine auto, to fine offices...these people should be more reliable, to help people on a grander scale, and are far more refreshed and inspired, than the poor fellow on the corner with his addictions and lack of good nutrition...with his lack of education, and without that certain grace, that comes from having an abundance of money these days... those blessed with riches, have a responsibility to use it wisely, to care for more than their own persons.
"Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology"
(Of course personally, I fit into this category EXCEPTING I do not want them removed from power, I want them acting with care~ a rather big differance)
Who else does one suppose is to blame, if blame need be placed?
Could it be that the starving, and unfortunate lower classes are to blame for not having the energy to begin to repair global social & political problems?
M'just sayin'
;~})
~If anyone should have the energy to even begin to repair problems, it must be the wealthy and powerful, they coming from thier spa treatments and fabulous foods, and vacations in exotic places, from their fine houses to their fine auto, to fine offices...these people should be more reliable, to help people on a grander scale, and are far more refreshed and inspired, than the poor fellow on the corner with his addictions and lack of good nutrition...with his lack of education, and without that certain grace, that comes from having an abundance of money these days... those blessed with riches, have a responsibility to use it wisely, to care for more than their own persons.
So it seems that everybody thinks chelation therapy cured Desiree Jennings, and so it must have been the Thimerosal that caused her symptoms.
The thing is - nobody has stopped to ask which of the seasonal flu vaccines it was that she was administered (i'm refraining from voicing a strong opinion I have formed of the woman, for the time being), and i'd be willing to bet money she doesn't know either.
This is crucial information because not all of the seasonal flue vaccines contain thimerosal, and the availability of thimerosal free seasonal flu jabs is increasing.
Does anybody have any information that isn't based on assumptions?
The thing is - nobody has stopped to ask which of the seasonal flu vaccines it was that she was administered (i'm refraining from voicing a strong opinion I have formed of the woman, for the time being), and i'd be willing to bet money she doesn't know either.
This is crucial information because not all of the seasonal flue vaccines contain thimerosal, and the availability of thimerosal free seasonal flu jabs is increasing.
Does anybody have any information that isn't based on assumptions?
QUOTE
More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary.
You do know that many children in her predicament did and do and will die? Which automatically means that those who don't get their kids vaccinated are rolling the dice on their children. It's no different than letting a total stranger have your kid for a day. Chances are that she'll come back fine. But would you gamble her on it? I'm glad she made it, but she might not have. A vaccine would have given her much better chances yet. This is not a theory. The vaccine works. Not 100%, but 75% is a great number for medical success.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More recently I took her in to a clinic concerning what was looking like the measles. Turned out it wasn't but when we told the doctor there about what had happened she said that it was most likely H1N1 and that all three of us have had enough exposure that the H1N1 vaccine wouldn't be necessary. |
You do know that many children in her predicament did and do and will die? Which automatically means that those who don't get their kids vaccinated are rolling the dice on their children. It's no different than letting a total stranger have your kid for a day. Chances are that she'll come back fine. But would you gamble her on it? I'm glad she made it, but she might not have. A vaccine would have given her much better chances yet. This is not a theory. The vaccine works. Not 100%, but 75% is a great number for medical success.Several tens of thousands die each year from all sorts of things. Does that mean we should heavily pad the walls and floor of our houses and never leave it?
We are not talking about all sorts of things; we are talking about one thing - the flu, and how big a threat it is to the young and old, and the relative ease by vaccine to greatly mitigate the threat. My 85 year old mother gets the seasonal shot every year, and she is often reactive to things, but it didn't sway us at all, and she has done just fine with it, as well as with the pneumonia vaccine. The alternative - contracting flu or pneumonia - is not acceptable. The vaccine is. I'll say it again: most of the tens of thousands that die each year from flu are not vaccinated, yet there it sat waiting for them in their doctor's office while they were alive and healthy. What percentage do you think would have made a different decision if they could have peered hence at their own grave?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.