JosephH

Wait, talk about the glass half empty - 70% of all cases of cervical cancer are associated with the subtypes covered by the vaccines - 70%. Do you still have to get pap smears? Sure. Will some women still get HPV-related cervical cancer? Sure. But you're going to sneer at 70% and say vaccinating and not vaccinating are equally reasonable approaches? What kind of world does she live in? I don't anyone would wouldn't reduce their exposure to that degree in a heartbeat. Unimaginable.

I've got a better fix, abolish the states as an unnecessary anachronism.

I would add another correlation is the whole range of autoimmune diseases which have been increasing over the past seventy years in a dramatic fashion. Here is an NYTimes article discussing the probable role of maternal inflammation during pregnancy in autism. Time to start eating dirt or ordering worm cocktails...

Well, happy birthday regardless of the chronology.

First off, did you read all of that wiki page you linked to? You know, down to this part: And on this... You're obviously of Eleanor McBean's persuasion if you think flu is in some way benign. There is nothing benign about it. It's a deadly virus and capable of startling waves of lethal pandemics killing millions. And who believes that flu is horrific rather than benign? Well, Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota for one and he is the 'vaccine critic' who is the subject of the blog post in your original link for one: But then you and all the other anti-vaccers are the product of the success of medicine at minimizing the societal effects of infectious disease. Again, my parents lost many friends and classmates all through their school careers and beyond. They saw firsthand the effects of childhood diseases and remember TB sanitariums and masses of polio victims in respirators. If we stopped vaccinating tomorrow the effects would be horrific. As for your initial link, the NYTimes writer entirely misinterprets and misrepresents the conclusions and recommendations of the very report she's writing her blog post on. Dr. Osterholm is criticizing our lack of efficacy data in various populations and is not arguing against the use of current vaccines, but rather saying we need vaccines with high efficacy. Read his actual report linked above - here are his real conclusions: The good doctor isn't recommending against our current vaccines, he's arguing for MORE funding for BETTER vaccines - specifically he and everyone else in the business are searching for a 'universal' vaccine that, given once, would confer immunity against all flu, seasonal and pandemic. Next time read the actual report that is the topic of a blog posts you link to and be aware that all medicine and especially that related to public health and infectious disease is a societal 'best effort' affair with stark risk / benefit tradeoffs and someone will always end up with a short straw - a bummer, but that's life in an imperfect world.

There is no end to what a republican can do with the stroke of a pen once they realize there is no earthly possibility of exploiting a resource. And while remote, I'm guessing they're ripe for a patriotic colonization in kind of a honky Liberia.

Actually, I didn't miss the point. The attempted conjunction of cancer and the incredible miscalculation of risk of 'hurt' was what I was responding to. You 'get' both cancer and the flu (and there's a distinct possibility a lot of cancers are virally initiated). One we don't really have much in the way of anything specific you can do to avoid getting it, the other we do. So the huge leap necessary to put the risk of adverse reaction from the flu vaccine on par with the risk of flu virus and cancer is in and of itself astounding, but to then jump on stage and declare, "why would I voluntarily 'harm' myself" with said vaccine is about on par with the thinking used to accuse women of witchcraft.

You keep telling yourself that despite overwhelming ** gasp ** facts to the contrary. Let me guess where you stand on sasquatch, UFOs and the moon landing.

Well, if you get an aggressive cancer you be sure and tell the docs you want them to be ultra-conservative and only do things we know are 100% sure deals with no possible unintended consequences and see how you make out.

Case in point: In other words we're somewhat desperate for effective cancer treatments and leap on things which appear to have an effective risk/benefit ratio. That evaluation may or may not include testing in every possible age group, sex, race, etc. Sometimes we get it only partially right or entirely wrong, but if you had an aggressive breast cancer how safe would you want the "medical establishment" to play it?

Agreed. Dude, you must be right if the bone is rallying to your side. And you think there is some form of medicine that doesn't represent the "medical establishment experimenting on us"?

Dude, get some edjumacation before spouting: herd immunity. and of course you care more about a few nesting birds than humans. Sigh, is it a reflex or an affliction?

Dude, get some edjumacation before spouting: herd immunity.

Puritans and power - ridiculous. Sun tzu and the Khans knew that in a world at war, high stress on leaders just isn't a good thing and someone needs to be giving the presidential and four star blow jobs. They get this in the EU where affairs are the norm and are definitely not a crime under their UCMJs; that it is under ours is a problem because - formally or informally - you just aren't going to decouple power and pussy.

Way to get it done - shows what a forthcoming, sincere, and honest approach based on mutual trust and respect can deliver.

You're conflating way too many aspects of the pharmacy industry, its practices, it's products, the science behind them, and medical history. The result is really a lurching mess. Yes, without a doubt pharma has moved trials offshore to countries with few rules and high levels of corruption over the past two decades in response to oversight in the US and EU and that's a despicable practice - one among many in that industry. Those capitalism-driven business practices aside, our societal delivery of medicine unavoidably kills people sometimes in any number of ways and that unfortunately is part of the cost of providing healthcare to large populations: bad things sometimes happen. Appendectomies for example, don't all turn out well; most all surgeries have a certain percentage of bad outcomes and most drugs have adverse effects or are poorly tolerated by a certain percentage of people. Fighting infectious disease in particular is a constantly shifting battlefield where it's often the case where it's not about the individual, but rather the herd. And in protecting the herd there are again unavoidable costs in individual lives. No two people are alike and responses to vaccines operate on bell curves of efficacy and adverse reactions - some people die for any of a variety of reasons. Ditto on our cancer treatment about which today you can still say the cure can be almost as bad as the cancer and a matter of which succumbs first. Our transportation and food distribution systems operate similarly with equally tragic loss of lives each year. But do you sell your car or stop shopping at Safeway because a fellow member of the herd died? Bottom line is we don't know what causes autism, but it isnt the vaccines per se. More likely it will be a genetic, microbiome, environmental, cultural, or societal issue or some combination of all of the above.

It appears this revolves around the Central Command's economic contribution to Tampa to some extent and in the creation of an interesting local military brass / high-society culture. This sort of intermingling happens on a fairly broad scale up in D.C. but egos are at least somewhat kept in check by the sheer numbers of the power players. In Tampa's isolation, however, it seems to have all spun out of control in some fairly odd and incestuous ways.

The OPV AIDS hypothesis was thoroughly investigated by people who lent the concept credibility until the science soundly repudiated it. You can make a far better case that OPV contamination by SV40 may be involved with some cancers - but not AIDS.

The racist democrats of the south didn't become less racist, they became republicans. That they now want to re-secede after a black man won a second term in the Whiteyhouse doesn't really surprise me after a forty year campaign by the republicans encouraging that racism.

I do have a minor in microbiology and am now so nervous I'm going to pay to have my transcripts amended to remove it.

Africa is still starving despite vaccines? That anyone would even attempt to correlate those two is so friggin' hilarious. It's like saying vaccines haven't brought down traffic fatalities here in the U.S.

They have a critical thinking vaccine for threads like this. Hard to cram more fundamentally and increasingly skewed bullshit into this many bits but conspiracy theorists always manage. And really, the whole vaccine thing is just a cover for the chemtrails work, dontchaknow.

And hell, I'm sure they'd love to have it back - Mitt could be Governor of New Texas given his Mexican roots.

Texas is essentially on it's own electrical grid so it's really not a problem unplugging it. I say let the racist cocksuckers go and let them take Oklahoma while they're at it.

They obviously don't teach female sexual counter-insurgency and social warfare tactics at West Point or the War College. He was in way over his head.