Jump to content

Kimmo

Members
  • Posts

    1741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kimmo

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. First off, did you read all of that wiki page you linked to? You know, down to this part:

     

    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?

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

    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:

     

    BANGKOK (Jan. 25) — Much of the world, including governments, business and the news media, is “asleep at the switch” about one of the biggest threats to human existence ever known, a leading American specialist on infectious diseases said here this week. Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a frequent writer on such topics as avian flu and bioterrorism, said the world fails to fully understand the implications of such threats.

     

    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.

     

     

    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.

     

    CONFLATION ALERT! CONFLATION ALERT! oh and STRAW MAN ALERT!

     

    Calling for proper research does not equate to what you present above.

     

    Dr. Osterholm is criticizing our lack of efficacy data in various populations

     

    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.

     

    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:

     

    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).

  4. If the concern is autism, I think that horse has already left the barn, because there's a whole lotta perseveration

     

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

  5. re: cancer and flu:

     

    One we don't really have much in the way of anything specific you can do to avoid getting it, the other we do.

     

    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....

     

     

    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

     

    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

     

     

    "why would I voluntarily 'harm' myself" with said vaccine is about on par with the thinking used to accuse women of witchcraft.

     

    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.

  6. Actually, I didn't miss the point.

     

    i think you did.

     

    your original quote:

     

    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.

     

     

    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?

  7. 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.

     

    joe, you missed my point.

     

    and kk got it.

  8. 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.

     

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

  9. I wonder if you guys have as much concern about the food you put in your body as you do vaccines. There is a lot of live vaccines in food these days.

     

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

  10. 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.

  11. WE BELIEVE IN AMERICA (kind of self evident, no?)

     

    GOP Platform 2012

     

    "...we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity."

     

    LOL

     

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

     

    thanks, appreciated!

  12. 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.

  13.  

    if you do stop toking (assuming this is the problem), you will actually be able to recover your critical thinking skills.

     

    but possibly only up to a point. the longer the initial problem has existed, the harder the recovery. but, this is no excuse to not try, because some damage can absolutely be reversed. it might take time, possibly a year or more, but it's worth it.

     

    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.

  14. I'm reminded of some crusty old Whitey Tighties on FOX yesterday - and even a youngish blogger - God I fucking hate bloggers - who still parrot the 'pot as a gateway drug' and 'legalization will increase crime' arguments.

     

    i know, right?

     

    everyone knows pot improves critical thinking skills, reasoning ability, and humor too.

     

    just look at bong toke bob.

  15. seat belts, lol. This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

     

    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?

     

     

  16. Crocodiles have 2% of their youngsters reach adulthood. But we worry about every single opportunity to procreate.

     

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

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...