Kimmo

your post on the previous page truly piqued my interest. looking forward to a more in depth read when time presents.

funny.

Ivan, joe and myself are involved in a privacy conversation in a public forum, and might possibly change the the current parameters of the vaccine debate altogether. also, I found your input neither offensive nor

and just to clarify, Joseph, I am NOT dismissing the Stanford study. I do hope though that we share enough common ground that the information presented was lacking, and difficult to draw a conclusion from. having said that, certainly very interesting that respiratory infections were associated with the development of narcolepsy, yes? certainly no more or less interesting than if a vaccine may have done so.

sure did. they studied chinese patients, none of whom were given Pandemrix (the vaccine in question). and, did the study conclude then that all these post-vaccine cases of narcolepsy in Finland and Sweden were associated with upper respiratory infections or H1N1? We just aren't told enough about the study (how many chinese patients, how many developed narcolepsy, etc etc.) to draw any conclusions. maybe if we knew about the glaring omissions, the case would be stronger? maybe you want to research the study a little more? are you referring to the flu pandemic of 1918? and exactly how is the flu shot available RIGHT NOW at your local pharmacy going to protect you from the "horrors" of a new pandemic? the medical establishment is guessing as to which strain will emerge, and if a new "pandemic" "killer" flu emerges, the current vaccine will do nothing about it. joe, i don't think he's referring to the known strains of flu we currently vaccinate against. he's referring to emergent strains that we have no protection against (through vaccines) until they actually emerge, right? maybe i'm missing something? edify me. CONFLATION ALERT! CONFLATION ALERT! oh and STRAW MAN ALERT! Calling for proper research does not equate to what you present above. oh please. does this sound like he's criticizing efficacy data of our current flu vaccines? “We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. “It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” that's english, joe, and it's pretty clear. agreed. this was never in question. people will make different recommendations based on the same data sets; i believe it's our responsibility to inform ourselves in order to make these decisions for ourselves. and regarding peeps getting vaccines in order to protect others? health care workers no less.... another biased source. one last thing you should do is inform yourself how the CDC comes up with the "annual flu death" stats in the US. let's just say it's an interesting process (i'll provide info later; gotta run).

I knows. and it has a stronger genetic component than autism. you'd be an interesting research subject.

you are getting remarkably good at throwing substanceless non-sequiters out there, but unfortunately nothing else. What happened?

re: cancer and flu: did you read the OP link regarding the flu vaccine? efficacy highly questioned. and yea there are specific things one can do to avoid cancer: don't be a fat slob smoking and drinking all the time, for one thing.... why did you start conflating the flu vaccine's risk with cancer? isn't this a bit of a contorted jump? regarding flu vaccine benefits vs risks, again, i'd point you back to the OP link. other considerations: THL concluded in February 2011 that there is a clear connection between Pandemrix vaccination campaign of 2009 and 2010 and narcolepsy epidemic in Finland. There was a nine times higher probability to get narcolepsy with vaccination than without it. Total of 52 cases of narcolepsy have been found in Finland during 2009–2010 and 90% of these children had taken Pandemrix vaccination. Authorities believe that the number of cases may still increase.[25][26] At the end of March 2011, an MPA press release stated: "Results from a Swedish registry based cohort study indicate a 4-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children and adolescents below the age of 20 vaccinated with Pandemrix, compared to children of the same age that were not vaccinated." [27] The same study found no increased risk in adults who were vaccinated with Pandemrix. While cautioning that the increase in risk for children is still uncertain in magnitude, it recommends they not be vaccinated. link australia suspends flu vaccines joe, many things in life are cost/benefit analyses. the flu shot is one. hey if you wanna get a vaccine that even parts of our medical establishment questions the efficacy of, does carry some risk, and proffers (questionable) protection for a benign illness, then go for it.

i think you did. your original quote: is it reasonable for you to conflate someone's choices when faced with an aggressive form of cancer to someone's choices regarding the flu vaccine, or chicken pox vaccine?

joe, you missed my point. and kk got it.

right after receiving the chicken pox and flu vaccine, because those are deadlier than any cancer.

ya do the best ya can. organic, ideally mainly vegetable based.

call me slow on the slow bus, but damn, i hadn't seen it so up close and personal before. maybe it has something to do with bong toke bob's prescriptions? but that usually mellows a soul out. hmmm. i don't want to make light of it if it truly is an issue, but it's hard not to wonder when you see someone stomping around so much in a loose and disjointed way.

i'm starting to wonder if there's a biological basis for this.... bipolar much?

you sir, are a true rebel. i admire those who stand up so bravely to authority.

over some single malt? ahh the pain. i have made the decision to quit alcohol, but i sure do miss laphroaig.

not to be rude and all, but any chance you could take your republican obsession over to the republican obsession thread? thanks, appreciated!

hey, maybe we can share a bong toke in the muir hut someday.

lol.

oh and then there's the thing with numbers....

hey, just because it's legal now doesn't mean it's safe. just look at alcohol! you know the path: bong toke bob turns into burnout bob, and then you die. but not without taking a whole lot of people with you.

What is shocking to me is that you can't even defend your position with anything other than emotive, unsubstantive and ad hominem responses. You should maybe go for a walk and clear your head -- don't worry, we all think you're really smart and we'll give you another chance! Life is hard, isn't it? what does the above have to do with defending my position? i'm just worried about your pot use, and the effect it's having on your brain.

i know, right? everyone knows pot improves critical thinking skills, reasoning ability, and humor too. just look at bong toke bob.

yea, seat belts. revolutionary. you may not know this, bob, but once upon a time in amerika there weren't seat belts in cars. amazing, huh? then people kinda figured out that hey, maybe cars would be safer if there were seat belts. this didn't keep some from complaining about their implementation, no. i mean really, most people didn't die because there weren't seat belts, only some, so what's the big deal?

hey bong toke bob, through deductive reasoning i think, this guy's saying we should be like crocodiles; waddayathink?